Teleological argument Flashcards
Teleological arguments
Teleological arguments argue that the evidence of purpose and regularity in the universe leads to the conclusion that there is a designer-God. Telos means purpose and ology is study-so the study of purpose in the universe to show God exist.
what is an inductive argument?
leads to a probable conclusion
what is a deductive argument?
leads to a definite conclusion
what are a-posteriori arguments?
using empirical evidence and experience of the world
what are a-priori arguments>
using reason and logic alone
what are synthetic statements?
true or false based on observation
what are analytic statements?
proven true by logic and reason alone
strengths/weaknesses of inductive arguments?
Strong, everyone can access it and witness
Strong, only a probable conclusion so can be eye-opening, allow new ideas, flexible, adaptable
Weak, could be interpreted differently and make different conclusions
Weak, can’t trust our sense experiences/decieved
strengths/weaknesses of deductive arguments?
Strong, leads to a definite conclusion, no different interpretations
Strong, not based on sense experience which can be decieved
Weak, reason could be manipulated and wrong
Weak, need to agree to the premises otherwise it won’t work
Weak, just because something makes sense logically, that doesn’t make it true in reality
Aquinas’ fifth way
argued design qua regularity and purpose. Inanimate bodies work in a regular way towards a purpose. They have no rational powers and so must be directed towards this purpose by an external power- God
Aquinas’ arguments aren’t to prove religion or convert atheists, they’re for current believers, emphasising
^Aquinas’ example
He gives the example of an arrow and an archer. The arrow cannot guide itself. It needs the archer to guide it. The archer is God and the arrow stands for inanimate objects.
Paley (1743-1805)
(watch, eye, universe)
claimed that if you came across a watch on a heath and had never seen it before, you would notice that it is very intricate and all the parts work together in order to form a purpose. Even if the watch did not work perfectly, you would have to conclude that the watch had not come about by chance but had a designer. He said the same was true of the world. All the parts work so well together to form a purpose that, like the watch, the world could not have come together by chance but must have a designer-God.
claimed that the eye was designed for the purpose of seeing and its complex design suggests an intelligent designer. Likewise, the intricate mechanisms of the human body suggest an intelligent designer. Paley also referred to the lacteal system-the number of teats in each species is found to bear the proportion to the number of the young. All of this evidence points to a designing creator-God.
Design qua regularity-Paley used evidence from astronomy and Newton’s law’s of motion and gravity to prove design in the universe. The rotation of the planets in the solar system and how these obey universal laws. This could not have come about by chance. An external agent must have imposed order on the universe and this agent is God.
Dawkins
There is no such thing as irreducible complexity. Evolution can explain the eye. It existed in the past in a much simpler form e.g. light sensitive cells and over millions of years, evolved to be as it is today. All different stages of the evolution of the eye can still be seen in the animal kingdom e.g. snail’s eye vs human eye.
Hume’s criticisms
- Why conclude that design in the universe is from the classical theistic God. Surely it could be the work of several lesser Gods, or an apprentice God who has moved on to create bigger and better worlds. Also, machines are regularly made by many people, so the analogy would better suggest that many Gods designed the world.
- The designer could not be infinite and perfect because of the evidence of flaws in the world e.g suffering and death. Strong-The evidence in the world does not point to a loving God e.g. why would a loving God allow child suffering?
- Humans do not have sufficient knowledge and experience of the creation of the world to conclude that there is only one designer. We only have experience of things we have created and designed. This is too limited to draw similar conclusions about the creation and design of the world.
- The universe is more like a vegetable than a machine as it grows of its own accord rather than being something which is made by hand. So the watch analogy is weak. Darwin would support this with Evolution -nature designs itself.
- If the world is ordered, then this could be due to chance. His Epicurean Hypothesis-as the universe is eternal, in this unlimited time, it was inevitable that random particles would form a constantly ordered state.
- Hume says that we cannot make assumptions between cause and effect. We can see the world (the effect) but we cannot conclude anything about the designer God from the effects.
responses to Hume’s criticisms
- Professor Polkinghorne give the analogy that if you were rowed up in front of a firing squad and they all aimed and missed, you would never conclude that this was chance. Likewise-the anthropic principle states that so many different factors had to happen for life to begin on earth that you could not conclude that this was chance. (Tennant would support this).
- There may be a good reason why God designed suffering. Hick and Irenaeus would argue that it is to develop humans and their virtues.
- Vegetable still needs a creator – so proves that there is still a designer. Anything that grows needs an exterior force to keep it alive (water, nutrients etc.)- that exterior force for the Earth could be God.
- Incorrect assumption about the world being like a watch – Paley was actually suggesting that the world is like a watch because all the parts work together – do not need to extend analogy to the extent of how many people created it, not Paley’s original intention.
- If we don’t have enough knowledge about the creation of the universe then surely no-one can make a statement – including Hume. Therefore, all Hume’s theories should not be accepted, based on Hume’s point that Human’s have insufficient knowledge. There may still be a possibility that design argument is truth.
- Where did the particles originally come from in the Epicurean hypothesis? Everything needs a beginning; these particles may have come from God.
- William Lane Craig argues that infinity does not make sense. This is because you cannot add to infinity e.g. if you have a library with infinite books and you add a book, you still have infinite books. If the universe was infinite, you could not add events to it but we do. Therefore, it is not infinite and so there is no such thing as infinite time. The Epicurean hypothesis fails.
- Religious believers would rarely base their view that God designed the world purely on observation. They also use revelation of scripture. This was the view of Aquinas. Genesis 1 and 2 speaks of God creating and designing the world. Believers have faith in this revelation and use it alongside their observations.
- Philosophy often works by drawing conclusions about causes which can’t be seen. E.g. Aristotle and the prime mover. If it did not, then it would limit truth about causes to this empirical world which is to make the assumption that truth only lies in this world which may be wrong-the naturalistic fallacy
