Teleological arguments Flashcards
what two forms can teleological arguments be divided into
Spatial order- certain features i nature indicate that there must be a god
Temporal order- the laws of nature (ie gravity) must be designed, by God.
Outline the argument from spatial order- Paley’s design argument
-the argument suggests that the complexity, order, and purpose of the natural world imply there must be an intelligent designer, which is god
-the intricacy and purposeful design of the watch implies a skillful watch maker, so does the intricate and purposeful design of the natural world imply the existence of a skillful designer, which is God.
-
P1. a watch has features of spatial order and purpose (tell the time).
P2. anything with these features must have been designed by a designer.
C1. therefore the watch was made by a designer.
P3. the universe has the same features of spatial order and purpose as a watch.
C2. therefore nature has been designed by a wondrous designer.
C3. This designer is God.
Hume’s design argument
Formulates a teleological argument in order to reject it.
- the fitting of means to an end in nature (parts in an eye allowing vision), resemble the fitting of means to end in human design.
similar effects have similar causes.
the cause of human designs are minds
-so, by analogy, the cause of the design in nature is also a mind
-and this mind is God, given the grandeur of nature’s design.
-
P1. look around at the universe and you’ll see it consists of parts, working together towards an end with incredible accuracy
P2. in this way the universe resembles a great machine, as machines work together towards an end
P3. effects that are similar have causes which are similar
P4. machines are caused by designers, possessing thought, wisdom, and intelligence
C1. therefore the universe must be caused be a designer of nature, who has intelligence and wisdom.
C2. this designer is God.
what two arguments are from spatial order
Hume’s-machine argument
Paley’s- watchmaker argument
Response to teleological arguments- issue with the analogies
Issues with drawing an analogy between the design of man-made objects and design in nature.
- Man made objects are very different from natural
objects, it seems incoherent to compare different
properties.
- we have observed man made objects being designed,
but we have no such experience of this in the case of
nature
- Even if there are examples of design within the
universe, it is a fallacy to conclude that this shows that
the universe is itself designed, as our causal
relationship is only based on empirical evidence.
such differences weaken the analogy between the design of man-made items and the apparent design of nature.
Response to teleological arguments-Infinite time, finite matter- Hume
Objects to the teleological arguments on the grounds that there may be better explanations of the order within nature.
Hume proposes two truths:
-time is infinite
-matter is finite
it follows that it is inevitable that matter will organise itself into combinations which appear to be designed.
- monkey type writer example to exemplify the nature of infinity.
-Given enough time, the matter will arrange itself into combinations which appear to be designed, even if they aren’t.
Response to teleological arguments-Causation- Hume
Hume argues we never experience causation, only the ‘constant conjunction’ between one event following the other.
hume argues we can build a inferential relationship between two things, only if we have observed the same outcome from the same cause many time ( dropping something, it falling to the ground).
However the universe if from a unique case, we have only experienced one universe, we cannot infer a causal relationship between a designer (God) and creation based on one event.
Response to teleological arguments-Spatial disorder-Hume
Hume claims that the universe exemplifies much ‘spatial disorder’, arguing that such features of spatial disorder show that the universe wasn’t designed . Hume names such spatial disorders, such as vast empty spaces in the universe which serve absolutely no purpose, proposing it is much more likely that these occurrences are coincidences of nature, rather than designs as these would be incoherent designs.
Response to teleological arguments-Darwin:evolution by natural selection
Explains how complex organisms- complete with parts organised for a purpose, can emerge from nature without a designer.
- explain how natural selection works
(given enough time, the beings which can best adapt to new changes, and pass on competitive genetics will create the appearance of design)
This directly undermines teleological arguments fro spatial disorder. Evolution says that matter can arrange itself into ways that ‘fit means to an end’ without a designer.
Swinburne’s teleological argument from temporal order
Swinburne distinguishes between spatial and temporal order. (order within nature vs. order of the laws of nature).
He accepts that evolution can explain why certain aspects of nature appear to be designed, so neither humes teleological or paley’s argument succeed.
swinburne argues that we cannot explain the laws of nature.
For example, we cannot explain why the laws of nature are the way they are.following this, science cannot explain why the laws of nature are the way they are.
Swinburne argues that the best explanation of this is a ‘personal’ explanation. his argument follows.
P1. there are two types of explanation:scientific and personal
P2. we give a personal explanation when explaining the temporal order in human actions.e.g this sentence exists because i chose to write it
P3. by analogy we can give a similar personal explanation for the laws of nature. ‘the laws f nature exist because God designed them’
p4. there is no scientific explanation for why the laws of nature are the way they are
c1. so this only leaves a personal explanation
c2. so god exists
Response to Swinburne’s argument from temporal order- Multiple universes
We can adapt hume’s argument from infinite time, to infinite universes.
If there is an infinitely large number of universes, it is highly likely that one of them may be able to support life. when such universes exist, it is sheer luck rather than design.
-rolling million sided dice for example…
Response to Swinburne’s argument from temporal order-Is the designer god?
Hume and Kant have argued that even if the teleological arguments prove the existence of a designer, it does not necessarily have to be God. the designer is not always the creator. The universe may be the result of small improvements.
The teleological arguments are necessarily exhaustive, and there are other possibilities than God.
