Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

metaphysics of god > teleological argument > Flashcards

teleological argument Flashcards

1
Q

teleological argument

A
  • arguments from design
  • aim to show certain features of nature or the laws of nature are so perfect that they must have been designed by a designer – God
  • a posteriori
  • stages of the teleological argument: design —> designer —> god
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

a watch

A
  • it is a complex object
  • it has many parts
  • they are carefully arranged
  • it has a purpose - to tell the time
  • it must have a designer
  • the watch could not have just turned up
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

evidence of design

A
  • order/organisation
  • complexity
  • purpose
  • improbability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

David Hume

A
  • argued there are no good arguments for the existence of god
  • he produced an argument for the existence of god before objecting to it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Hume’s argument from analogy

A
  1. in the organisation of parts for a purpose (the fitting of means to ends), nature resembles the products of human design
  2. similar effects have similar causes
  3. the cause of the products of human design is an intelligent mind that intended the design
  4. therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design
  • is an inductive argument
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Paley’s watch

A
  • if you found a watch in a field, you would be right to infer that it had been designed
  • the property of having an organisation of parts put together for a purpose
  • suppose the watch mechanically builds a new watch - this doesn’t explain the design of the second watch
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Paley’s argument

A
  • natural things exhibit this same property of having parts organised for a purpose
  • the reproduction of living things does not explain their design
  • if the inference of a designer is correct in the case of the watch, it is correct in the case of living things
  • the designer of nature must be - a mind: design requires consciousness and thought; separate from the universe, the designer cannot be what is designed
  • god is the designer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Paley’s argument in premises

A
  1. anything that has parts organised to serve a purpose is designed
  2. nature contains things which have parts that are organised to serve a purpose
  3. therefore, nature contains things which are designed
  4. design can only be explained in terms of a designer
  5. a designer must be or have a mind and be distinct from what is designed
  6. therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature
  7. therefore, such a mind (‘god’) exists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Richard Swinburne’s argument

A
  • there are two types of spatial order: spatial order - the organisation of parts to serve a purpose (order in nature); and temporal order - the orderliness in the way one thing follows another (order of the laws of nature)
  • Swinburne accepts that science, e.g. evolution, can explain the apparent design of things like the human eye (i.e. spatial order) and so Paley’s teleological argument does not succeed in proving God’s existence
  • however, Swinburne argues, we can’t explain the laws of nature (i.e. temporal order) in the same way
  • unlike spatial order, we can’t give a scientific explanation of why the laws of nature are as they are
  • science can explain and predict things using these laws – but it has to first assume these laws
  • science can’t explain why these laws are the way they are. In the absence of a scientific explanation of the laws of nature, Swinburne argues, the best explanation of temporal order is a personal explanation
  • we give personal explanations of things all the time – for example, ‘this sentence exists because I chose to write it’ or ‘that building exists because someone designed and built it’
  • Swinburne argues that, by analogy, we can explain the laws of nature (i.e. temporal order) in a similarly personal way: the laws of nature are the way they are because someone designed them
  • in the absence of a scientific explanation of temporal order, Swinburne argues, the best explanation is the personal one: the laws of nature were designed by God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Swinburne’s argument in premises

A
  1. there are some temporal regularities, e.g. related to human actions, that are explained in terms of persons
  2. there are other temporal regularities, e.g. related to the laws of nature, that are similar to those explained in terms of persons
  3. we can, by analogy, explain the regularities relating to the laws of nature in terms of persons
  4. there is no scientific explanation of the laws of nature
  5. (as far as we know, there are only two types of explanation - scientific and personal)
  6. therefore, there is no better explanation of the regularities relating to the laws of nature than the explanation in terms of persons
  7. therefore, the regularities relating to the laws of nature are produced by a person (a designer)
  8. therefore, such a person, who can act on the entire universe, exists
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

evidence of design

A

markers of design:
- order/organisation
- complexity
- purpose
- improbability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Hume’s objections

A
  • the analogy between man made, designed objects and the universe is weak
  • there is a ‘great disproportion’ between parts of the universe and the whole universe - so we cannot infer the cause of nature is similar to a human mind
  • the arrangement of parts for a purpose does not, on its own, show that the cause is a designer - we can only make this inference where we have further experience of a designer bringing about such order
  • we cannot make inferences about causes of single instances, such as the universe - we can only establish what causes what through repeated experience of cause and effect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

arguing from a unique case (Hume’s teleological argument)

A
  • a designer may not be the best explanation - e.g. suppose matter is finite and time is infinite, then all arrangements of matter will occur, by chance, over time; neither this explanation, nor a designer is clearly better, so we should suspend judgement
  • causation: whenever you have the cause, you get the effect - ‘constant conjunction’ - so you cannot know from a single existence, what causes what, repeated experience is necessary to infer a causal relation
  • the universe is unique so we cannot infer its cause - we can only infer a designer in cases in which we have repeated experience of something being brought about by a designer, the arrangement of parts of a purpose on its own is not sufficient
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Paley and analogy

A
  • Hume objects that the analogy between human artefacts and natural things is weak
  • strictly speaking, Paley doesn’t offer an argument from analogy - he says that both artefacts and nature have the same property
  • Paley: all we need, to infer a designer, is parts organised for a purpose - this is sufficient in the case of the watch, even if we knew nothing else about how watches are made
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Hume - spatial disorder

A
  • Hume argues although there are examples of order within nature (which suggests design), there is also much ‘vice and misery and disorder’ in the world (which is evidence against design)
  • if God really did design the world, Hume argues, there wouldn’t be such disorder, e.g. there are huge areas of the universe that are empty, or just filled with random rocks or are otherwise uninhabitable, suggesting that the universe isn’t designed but instead we just happen, by coincidence, to be in a part that has spatial order
  • these features are examples of spatial disorder – features that wouldn’t make sense to include if you designed the universe
  • Hume argues that such examples of disorder show that the universe isn’t designed. Or, if the universe is designed, then the designer is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent (as God is claimed to be)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Hume: causation

A
  • Hume argues that we never experience causation – only the ‘constant conjunction’ of one event following another - if this happens enough times, we infer that A causes B
  • but you cannot infer causation from a single instance
  • applying this to teleological arguments, Hume argues that the creation of the universe was a unique event – we only have experience of this one universe
  • and so, we can’t infer a causal relationship between designer and creation based on just one instance
17
Q

Hume - finite matter and infinite time

A
  • Hume’s objection assumes the following: time is infinite and matter is finite
  • given these assumptions, it is inevitable that matter will organise itself into combinations that appear to be designed
  • given enough time, it is inevitable that matter will arrange itself into combinations that appear to be designed, even though they’re not
18
Q

Paley’s response to Hume’s objections

A
  • if Hume’s objections apply to the inference regarding natural things, they should apply to Paley’s watch
  • but perhaps they do
  • perhaps, if we knew nothing about watches (or anything similar), we would not justified in inferring that the watch in the field is designed
19
Q

inference to the best explanation - Hume and Paley

A
  • Hume suggests an alternative explanation to a designer: suppose matter is finite and time is infinite, then all arrangements of matter will occur, by chance, over time
  • Paley: finite matter, infinite time is a bad explanation - we have no evidence that matter pushes into new arrangements, we know that the arrangement of matter changes in accordance with the laws of nature, time is not infinite - the universe began just under 14 billion years ago
20
Q

evolution by natural selection

A
  • Darwin explained how the appearance of design is possible without design
  • genetic alterations happen randomly; most disappear
  • but those that improve reproduction survive and spread in a population, altering the species
  • such alterations are not actually ‘selected’ - natural forces secure their survival
  • but: what explains the order found in the laws of nature that enable evolution to occur
  • the key idea is that given enough time and genetic mutations – it is inevitable that animals and plants will adapt to their environment, thus creating the appearance of design
  • this directly undermines Paley’s claim that anything that has parts organised to serve a purpose must be designed
21
Q

multiple universes - argument against Swinburne

A
  • Hume’s earlier argument (finite matter, infinite time) can be adapted to respond to Swinburne’s teleological argument
  • instead arguing that time is infinite, as Hume does, we could argue that the number of universes is infinite
  • if there are an infinite number of universes (or even just a large enough number), it is likely that some of these universes will have laws of nature (temporal order) that support the formation of life
  • when such universes do exist, it is just sheer luck. If each universe has randomly different scientific laws, there will also be many universes where the temporal order does not support life
22
Q

is the designer god - argument against Swinburne

A
  • both Hume and Kant have argued that even if the teleological argument succeeded in proving the existence of a designer, this designer would not necessarily be God
23
Q

science is inadequate (Swinburne)

A
  • science cannot explain scientific laws, because all scientific explanations presuppose laws
  • to explain life, we want to explain the very specific laws that allow for the existence of life
  • either there is some other explanation of them, or the whole way the universe is, is a complete coincidence
24
Q

personal explanation

A
  • we can explain the universe if we give a personal explanation in terms of a designer
    -we use explanations in terms of persons - what we want, believe, intend - all the time
  • this type of explanation accounts for regularities in succession - things come about because someone intentionally brings them about
  • these are not explanations that make use of scientific laws
25
Q

Hume’s objections, Swinburne’s replies

A
  • why thing that though - a ‘tiny, weak, limited cause’, which moves the bodies of animals - is a better explanation than something else
  • reply: because other explanations rely on the laws of nature which they do not explain
  • objection: could there be an alternative explanation - e.g., suppose matter is finite and time is infinite, then all arrangements of matter will occur, by chance, over time
  • reply: this supposes that there are no laws of nature - and we have no reason to think the laws of nature alter by chance over time - this is a worse explanation
26
Q

arguing from a unique case

A
  • Hume on causation: whenever you have the cause, you get the effect - ‘constant conjunction’ - so you cannot know from a single instance, what causes what, repeated experience is necessary to infer a causal relation
  • the universe is unique, so we cannot infer its cause
  • we can only infer a designer in cases in which we have repeated experience of something being brought about by a designer
  • Swinburne’s reply: cosmologists have drawn many conclusions about the universe (e.g., the big bad theory)
27
Q

best explanation

A
  • if there is no other explanation, then a designer is, technically the ‘best’ explanation
  • but is it good enough to be acceptable
  • Ockham’s razor - ‘do not multiply entities beyond necessity’
  • but the designer, although a new entity is introduced through necessity
  • but now we need to explain the designer - a min is as ordered as nature, and will need explanation - ‘what explains god’ is no better that ‘what explains scientific laws’
  • reply: a good explanation may posit something unexplained, this happens in science all the time, e.g. subatomic particles, that we cannot explain the designer is no objection
  • but then why not stop with unexplained laws of nature because with the designer, we can explain them - it us better to explain more than less
  • Swinburne says that the two simplest values are zero and infinity
28
Q

Hume’s argument from analogy and ‘is the designer god’

A
  • in the organisation of parts for a purpose (the fitting of means to ends), nature resembles the products of human design
  • similar effects have similar causes
  • the cause of the products of human design is an intelligent mind that intended design
  • therefore, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design
  • so, the designer should be like human beings
29
Q

objections to god as the designer

A
  • is the designer infinite and perfect
  • the scale and quality of the design reflect the power and ability of the designer
  • the universe is not infinite nor perfect
  • so, we cannot infer that the designer is infinite or perfect
  • is the designer a creator
  • designers are not always creators
  • so, we cannot infer that the designer of the universe also created the universe
  • is there only one designer
  • the designer may have resulted from many small improvements made by many people; so, we cannot infer that ‘the designer’ is just one person
  • is the designer a mind without a body
  • we find mind always connected to body, so we cannot infer the designer is only a mind
  • does the designer still exist
  • designers can die even as their creations continue, so we cannot infer that the designer still exists
30
Q

Swinburne: on explaining laws of nature

A
  • science cannot explain scientific laws, because all scientific explanations presuppose laws
  • either there is some other explanation of them, or the whole way the universe is, is complete coincidence
  • we can, by analogy, explain the regularities relating to the laws of nature in terms of persons (intention and action)
  • the best explanation, therefore, is that the acts of a designer impose order on the universe, described by laws of nature
31
Q

Swinburne’s replies to Hume

A
  • if god is perfect and infinite, this will have to be shown some other way than the design argument
  • however, Ockham’s razor supports the claim that there is just one designer who also created the universe - the uniformity of the laws of nature also suggest just one mind at work
  • the designer cannot have a body - if god’s effects are the laws of nature, and these hold throughout the universe, then god can act everywhere in space simultaneously
  • designers of spatial order can die while the effects of their design continue, but temporal order requires the existence of the person at that time - so god must exist whenever the laws of nature hold, since the laws of nature are the activity of god

metaphysics of god (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions