teleological arguments Flashcards
what are teleological arguments
- they are arguments from design
- aim to show that features of nature and the world are so perfect it must have been designed by a designer
- these features include law-like functioning of the universe (temporal order) and the way the parts of the world fit together as if they have been designed (spatial order and purpose)
- some are inductive, some are deductive, but all are based on posteriori premises (experience) (all are inductive on our syllabus)
what is the design argument from analogy as presented by Hume
- hume presents a version of the teleological argument through the character cleanthes which he later goes on to reject
- the argument is based on the analogy between the universe and a machine
- the universe consists of parts which work together with incredible accuracy
- the universe resembles a machine, as machines also consist of parts working together
- effects that are similar have causes that are similar
- machines are caused by human designers who possess thought, wisdom and intelligence
- therefore the universe must be caused by a designer of nature who possesses wisdom, thoughts and intelligence
- because the universe is like a machine in its effect (consists of parts that have a function) it must be like a machine in another aspect (caused by a designer)
what is William paleys design argument from spatial order/purpose
- Paley says if you come across a stone you could just assume its been there forever, but if you come across a watch you can’t assume this
- this is because a watch has several parts that work together for a purpose
- a watch has features of spatial order (several parts with correct materials) and purpose
- anything with these features must have been designed by a designer
- therefore a watch must have been designed by a designer
- nature also has spatial order and purpose e.g. an eye has many component parts (spatial order) with the purpose to see
- therefore nature has been designed by a designer
- and this designer is god so god exists
what is swineburgs design argument from temporal order/regularity
- swine burg doesn’t think his argument can prove the existence of god, but can prove the existence of a very powerful agent who is responsible for the regularity/temporal order of the universe
- swineburg distinguishes between two types of order; spatial and temporal order
- spatial order is the arrangement of constitute parts e.g. the structure of an eye
- temporal order is the patterns of behaviour of objects over time e.g. the law of gravity
- swineburg says that science can explain designs of things like the human eye (spatial order) but we cannot explain laws of nature (temporal order) in the same way
- e.g. the law of gravity is so exact that it allows galaxies and planets and life to form, but if gravity was even slightly stronger planets would not be able to form
–> why are these laws the way they are? - we can’t give a scientific explanation of why the laws of nature are as they are - science can predict things with these laws, but can’t explain why these laws are the way they are
- so the best explanation of temporal order is a personal explanation
- we give personal explanations of things all the time (this building exists because someone chose to build it)
- swine burg says that by analogy we can explain the laws of temporal order in a similar personal way: the laws of nature are the way they are because someone designed them
- the best explanation is a personal one; the existence of a rational agent with the intelligence, power, and freedom needed to create such an ordered universe is the best explanation for temporal order in the universe
what are humes objections to his own design argument from analogy
- the analogy is weak
- an analogy is strongest when the two things being compared are very similar + is weak when the two things being compared are not similar
- there are very few similarities and more differences between a universe and a machine (e.g. the universe is much much larger, has multiple parts that make up other parts that make up other parts)
- have to infer from the tiny part of the universe that we can observe to the universe as a whole which weakens the analogy further - there are counter analogies
- a counter analogy uses an argument from analogy to draw a conclusion that is very different to the original argument
- the universe resembles something more like a plant than a watch
- plants don’t have any designer, but are simply the result of natural processes, ‘generation and vegetation’
- similarly the world does not need to have any designer but may be the result of natural processes - the similarities are cherry-picked
- the argument chooses the parts of the analogy which suit it best, ignoring the parts that undermine it
- e.g. the design arguments concludes that the designer has some intelligent traits such as intelligence, skill, but ignores the fact that humans are also selfish, greedy etc
- machines are a result of trial and error, so perhaps many worlds were blotched before this one was created, or ours is an imperfect early draft
- machines are usually a product of a group of designers, so perhaps the universe was created by many gods, not just one
- people who design machines can be flawed, foolish, should we apply these traits to the designer of the universe?
explain the issue to design arguments of the problem of spatial order from hume (and Paley’s response)
- hume (as philo) argues that although there are examples of order in nature there are also examples of vice, misery and disorder’ e.g.
- large areas of the universe are empty or uninhabitable - not all of the universe appears to have been created with purpose, perhaps we happen to be, by coincidence, in the part of the universe that has spatial order
- earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, frequently go wrong + cause chaos - if the world is designed these chaotic features suggest the designer isn’t very good
- animals have been given bodies that endure pain + suffer - animals could have been made in such ways that their lives were happier and easier, if god was a loving and powerful human you would expect him to create animals this way.
- philo argues that such examples of disorder show that universe wasn’t designed, the designer lacks omnibenevolnce and omnipotence to create a perfect world. or maybe this flawed universe was created by an infant god.
Paley argues that wether or not the watch/the world works well is irrelevant; what’s important Is that it has the qualities that indicate it has been designed- spatial order does not matter if there is evidence for an arrangement of parts with a particular purpose
explain the issue that the design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case
- hume argues that we never experience causation, only the ‘constant conjunction’ of one event following another
- we can only say something caused something else after we have repeatedly observed the ‘constant conjunction’ of two events
- e.g. dropping phone repeatedly leads to crack in screen
- imagine you took a sip of tea then your friend immediately coughed - it would not be reasonable infer that drinking the tea caused your friend to cough because you can’t infer 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
- so, like the tea example, we can’t infer from this one instance a causal relationship between designer and creator
explain the issue of wether god is the best or only explanation
the appearance of design may be explained by random or natural processes
- the appearance of order may be due to ‘generation or vegetation’ an analogy to the natural processes of the growth of plants
- there is a high probability that a random system will have periods of order and stability over a long period of Time, maybe we are currently in that period of stability
the appearance of design may be explained by a ‘worldly architect’
- designers such as watch makers use materials that are available to them - they don’t create the materials
- the design argument shows a ‘wordly architect’ who put together pieces of the world, but not a creator of the world
the appearance of design may be explained by evolution (Charles Darwin)
- darwin proposed that the development of intricate parts could be explained by the process of natural selection (those with genetically advantaged genes reproduce leaving the genetically inferior to die out)
- genetic mutations leads to a variation in physical characteristics, some of which enable a plant/animal to be better able to survive and reproduce, organism becomes better ‘adapted’ to its environment
