Teleological arguments Flashcards
Where did Aquinas write about his argument from design?
Summa Theologica, it was the 5th out of his 5 ways in proving God’s existence
What type of arguments did Aquinas use?
He argued from design qua regularity (looking at patterns etc)
From observation- a-posteriori (such as the regular patterns of the seasons)
‘Backward looking’- looked at where we are now to deduce where we came from
Explain Aquinas’ analogy of the archer
As you see an arrow flying through the air, you must make the assumption that it came from somewhere, and had a cause (the archer). The arrow (natural bodies) is not able to direct itself, yet acts in a regular fashion to achieve its purpose, therefore there must be a God.
A quote from Aquinas
’ We see that things which lack knowledge act for an end… Hence it is plain that they achieve not fortuitously, but designedly’
How did Aristotle influence Aquinas?
He was influenced by A’s ideas of telos
Why did Aquinas believe there must be a God?
The natural world has order, patterns and regularity
The follow a pattern in order to achieve their telos
This cannot happen by chance (the archer)
They must have been designed by an intelligent designer
There must be a God
Quote from Socrates
With such signs of forethought in the design of living creatures, can you doubt they are the work of design?
How is Paley’s teleological argument different from Aquinas’?
P is arguing qua purpose, rather than from patterns and regularity
Why is Paley’s argument considered analogical?
It is based on the analogy of the watch
If you were to find a watch, you would examine it and see it as intricate and complex, clearly working to fulfil a purpose. You would conclude it had an intelligent designer.
What are Paley’s 5 evidences of design?
- The object has a specific MATERIALS which enables it to fulfil its purpose
- The object has SEVERAL COMPLEX PARTS
- The object works towards a specific PURPOSE
- The object exhibits REGULAR MOTION which enables the fulfilling of its purpose
- The object has INDISPENSABLE PARTS which without it could not fulfil its purpose
P uses example of an eye, it fulfils this criteria and therefore it is likely it was designed
How did physicist Paul Davies support the teleological argument?
‘The Goldilocks Enigma’
The conditions for life are so delicate and intricate it is unlikely they could have occurred by chance alone (the chance being near impossible)
How did astronomer Brandon Carter counteract the teleological argument?
‘Anthropic Principle’
The coincidences that make the earth ‘just right’ for life are part of the universe’s very structur, chance has nothing to do with it
Weak anthropic principle- If our universe wasn’t hospitable to life we wouldn’t be here to wonder about it
Strong anthropic principle- We live in a universe capable of supporting life, and know of no other universe’s. Therefore we are not special, as it is likely only life- supporting universes are possible
How did Tennant support the teleological argument and rebuttal ideas of evolution as a criticism?
The aesthetic principle
Nothing in Darwin’s theory of evolution explains humans love for music, art, literature and other beautiful things, as it doesn’t aid our survival, therefore are not influenced by natural selection. The capacity for joy was created by God, our intelligent designer
How could Darwin’s ideas be used to criticise the teleological argument?
Evolution explains apparent design
They are complex and intricate due to generations of development
How could Mill’s ideas be used to criticise the teleological argument?
Evil alone proves an omnibenevolent God cannot exist
If there was a designer, he would be cruel and malevolent (evidence for this is in nature)
Nature is crueller than the human mind- A lion devour’s the warthog’s piglets without a care, however when witnessed by humans they sob
How could Hume’s ideas be used to criticise the teleological argument (6) ?
- You cannot COMPARE a watch to a rock as they are dissimilar
- God is overly anthropomorphised. Comparing God to a HUMAN DESIGNER LIMITS GOD to a less than perfect being. Humans make failed designs that they refine and fix over and over.
- MULTIPLE GODS? Most machines are made and designed by multiple humans. Cannot be the Christian God
- SPIDER’s spin beautiful webs unknowingly without a great omniscience. Doesn’t necessarily point to a designer.
- You cannot infer CAUSE FROM EFFECT. Criticisms of natural theology- inductive leaps, variety of other explanations
- The universe could have initially been chaotic, then found order and created patterns. This could be mistaken for design
EPICUREAN HYPOTHESIS
How could you refute the ideas of Darwin?
Evolution is just a THEORY
No origin of species without a teleological mechanism , God may have designed natural selection
Natural selections AFFECTS EXISTENCE, doesn’t mean it caused it
CATHOLIC Church- evolution doesn’t discount a designer
How could you refute the ideas of Mill?
Matter of intention, nature doesn’t operate with intention like humans do
Disorder and evil could be a part of God’s plan (Irenaean theodicy?)
How could you refute the ideas of Hume?
Similar effects do not necessarily imply similar causes Ockham’s razor- entities are not to multiply beyond necessity (argument against community of God’s)
What are some strengths of the teleological arguments?
- GOLDILOCKS enigma- things are perfect for human existence (but if the universe is infinite would life not happen eventually?)
- It gives an EXPLANATION, and makes us question whether it was an accident or on purpose
- CUMULATIVE arguments- when added to multiple other arguments it becomes strong- compatible with other theories and religious ideas (universal consent?)- LEAKY BUCKET ??
- Has some SCIENTIFIC support in terms of its probability
How are Paley’s and Aquinas’ arguments similar?
A-posteriori
Inductive
both take an inductive leap from designer to God (and an assumption of His qualities)
Both speak about purpose
How could you use Bertrand Russell’s ideas to criticise the teleological argument?
You can’t take what is true of a part and make it true of a whole
The fallacy of composition
Just because every human has a mother doesn’t mean the universe as a whole has a mother
What might you include in your introduction about the teleological argument?
- Teleological DEFINE- argument for God’s existence evidenced by apparent design in nature (natural theology)
- QUOTE from Socrates or Aquinas
- Inductive, A-POSTERIORI, analogical, backwards looking
- PALEY, qua purpose, 5 evidences
- AQUINAS, qua regularity, telos + Aristotle
How could Karl Barth’s views on natural theology be applied to criticise the teleological argument?
Both Aquinas and Paley assume characteristics of God or the ‘designer’ based on their observations of nature
Barth believed that humans are too finite and limited to deduce anything about God ourselves- prefer revealed theology
What strengths about natural theology could be used to support the teleological argument?
Teleological is strong as natural theology is AVAILABLE TO ALL, everyone can get to know God through nature
Based off physical evidence and OBSERVATION rather than miracles and faith
Creator revealed through their creation eg art and ARTIST
How could Calvin’s ideas of natural theology support the teleological argument?
Nature is a clear ‘point of contact’ between nature and the Divine
Humans who cannot see God in nature have wilful ignorance and distorted reason, creating epistemic distance
Principle of accommodation- Good purposefully reveals himself through nature
Para on theme: science and observable evidence
FOR t. argument- A-posteriori Goldilocks enigma Probability of universe almost impossible Refute Darwin Accessible to all (Calvin)
AGAINST t. argument-
Mill- observe evil
Darwinism
Hume- cause and effect (making assumptions about cause and designer)
Order observed is just Epicurean Hypothesis
Para on theme: analogy
FOR t. argument-
Refute Hume- Ockham’s Razor
5 evidences of design are useful
Logical- assuming something about creator from the creation
AGAINST t. argument-
Hume- watch and universe dissimilar
Hume- spider
Hume- designer and God dissimilar, eg multiple God’s, flawed designer
Bertrand Russell- fallacy of composition, flawed analogies
Mill- malevolent or incompetent God, infantile God?
Para on theme: apparent order
FOR t. argument-
A-posteriori, observable, highly unlikely to be by chance- Goldilocks, Davies etc
Just happens like that isn’t sufficient reason- eg Tennant and aesthetic principle.
AGAINST t. argument-
Hume- falls into order, Epicurean hypothesis
Darwinism
Anthropic Principle- Brandon Carter, physicist
Para on theme: assuming the nature of God from the teleological argument
FOR t. argument-
Calvin- point of contact, accessible, principle of accommodation
Catholic church- Darwinism doesn’t rule out designer, affects existence doesn’t cause it, just a theory
Art and artist assumptions
Natural theology
Refute Hume
AGAINST t. argument- Mill Spider- lack of intelligence Karl Barth- too limited humans Hume- multiple God's, poor design Inductive leap
