Teleological Arguments for God Flashcards
What is Hume’s design argument, as made by Cleanthes?
- The material universe resembles the intelligent productions of human beings in that it exhibits design,
- The design in any human artifact is the effect of having been made by an intelligent being,
- Like effects have like causes,
- Therefore, the design in the material universe is the effect of having been made by an intelligent creator.
What is Paley’s watchmaker thought experiment?
Puts forward the following thought experiment,
1. Suppose you are walking on a heath, and your foot strikes a stone,
2. You look down at the stone and then see a watch on the ground next to it,
3. How would you think each got there? Would there be a difference?
4. In the case of the stone, we may well think that it had laid there forever. However, such an explanation would seem unsatisfactory for the watch,
5. It strikes us that there is something about the watch that demands further explanation.
What is Paley’s watchmaker analogy?
- The watch has several parts,
- The parts serve specific purposes and have been structured together to serve a purpose,
- The parts have been made with specific suitable materials,
- Together these parts create regulated motion,
- And if any part was different or absent, we expect that the watch would no longer function.
What is Paley’s teleological argument?
- A watch is a complex entity with spatial order and purpose. We can see this in that it has specific parts, with specific functions, of suitable materials and with, in structured unison, performs a regular function,
- Anything which has these features must be designed,
- From (1) and (2), the watch is designed,
- The universe features spatial order and design, albeit of an infinitely larger scale and complexity,
- From (4) and (2), therefore, the universe is designed, and there must be a designer,
- Therefore, God exists.
What does Paley reject as a potential cause of the watch? Why is this especially subject to criticism in modernity?
An Epicurean explanation, in which the atomic physical motions lead to the formation of the watch by chance, or randomly. He also rejects the notion that physical laws and forces alone could have produced the watch.
Especially liable to criticism due to the advent of Darwinian biology. Evolution hasn’t produced the watch but it has produced immensely complicated structures like the brain.
What other possibility does Paley consider? Why does he believe this still necessitates a creator?
That the watch itself is a watchmaking machine, capable of producing more watches. An infinite regress of watches produced by watchmaking watches.
Paley thinks that this ignores the key issue, which is how to explain the presence of the pertinent features of the watch, namely its order, structure, and functionality.
Paley does not reject an infinite regress from a perspective that it is contradictory, he is rejecting it on the practical basis that it does not explain what he thinks must be explained.
What concessions does Swinburne make in his design argument?
He acknowledges that the argument from design cannot prove the existence of a perfect, eternal, immutable, omnipotent, omniscient being, nor can it prove the God of Abraham. Rather, Swinburne thinks that it shows evidence of a ‘very powerful, free, non-embodied, rational agent’ who is responsible for the order and regularity of the universe.
Why does Swinburne believe that an intelligent design is the best explanation for the order of nature?
He thinks the existence of an intelligent designer is a superior explanation because he thinks that it is simpler and more unified.
What distinction does Swinburne believe we need make? Why is this important for his argument?
- Spatial order - regularities of co-presence, e.g. the arrangement of stars in Orion’s belt, or the parts of the watch or the human eye,
- Temporal order - regularities of succession, e.g. the pattern of movement of a kicked football, following the laws of nature.
Swinburne thinks that traditional design arguments have relied on the notion of spatial order, and that this makes them vulnerable to Hume’s arguments and those from evolution.
What is Swinburne’s teleological argument?
- Regularities of succession occur both as natural phenomena, a result of natural laws, as well as the result of human actions (e.g. footballs and dropped stones),
- We can explain the regularities in the human world as the result of free human action, the choices of a free agent,
- This is possible because human agents have the agency, power, will, intention, skill, and knowledge to bring about regularities of succession,
- Regularities of succession in the natural world that result from natural laws cannot be explained by reference to other natural laws,
- However, by analogy with (2), the regularities of the natural world could be explained by the actions and decisions of a free rational agent,
- The universe and its natural laws are immense in scale and complexity,
- Therefore, by (3), (5), and (6), regularities of succession in the natural world could be brought about by a free, intelligent agent of immense power, intelligence, and freedom.
What is Hume’s major critique of design arguments, as argued through Philo?
- Design arguments are based on the idea that ‘like effects have like causes’,
- Machines and the universe have similar features which could indicate design. Therefore, both have been designed, and, consequently, have like causes,
- One might ask whether there are many other relevant similarities, or if there are sufficiently many to justify the analogy,
- Hume suggests that the universe is more like an organism than a machine, it could be suggested that what we perceive as function and order of natural events and processes are better understood as due to ‘generation or vegetation than to reason or design’,
- We could as well posit blind natural processes to explain the perceived functionality of natural phenomena.
What other critique does Hume make, through Philo?
- Notes that we can use ‘like effects have like causes’ to argue for designers quite distinct from a perfect God,
- Most machines are the product of long period of trial, error, and frustration. Thus, we could suggest that the universe is a result of searching processes and experiment,
- This representation would seem quite contrary to the idea of the actions of a perfect God,
- Alternatively, most machines are not made by a single designer. Most are the results of a combined effort of many individuals, so why is it that the cosmos wasn’t co-authored?
What is Hume’s ‘issue of disorder’?
- Hume claims that we can perceive many faults and imperfections in nature; it is possible to interpret the universe as containing ‘evil’ and disorder,
- We can group these flaws into two types: physical flaws and moral imperfections.
What are moral imperfections in Hume’s ‘issue of disorder’? How can you counter this point?
- The world is filled with loss, pain, suffering, and misery. Human beings are not only creatures that must die, but also live with the knowledge that they will die, uncertain of their fate beyond that,
- Philo, in Hume’s writing, point is clear: if the universe was created with purpose, and everything in it designed to fulfil a function, then is it our purpose to suffer as we do? Is this cosmos like this because God is benevolent, but lacking in agency, power, skill, or knowledge? Or because God is indifferent?
- Philo concludes that if there is a creator deity, then it ‘is entirely indifferent … and has no more regard to good above ill than to heat above cold.’
What are physical flaws in Hume’s ‘issue of disorder’? How can you counter this point?
- Physical flaws have to do with the smooth, orderly running of a mechanism,
- We might think that the notion that there are ‘physical flaws’ in physical nature is nonsense, in the sense that it is illogical to apply the term ‘imperfection’ to nature; by what metric are we assigning imperfection.
How does Paley respond to the issue of disorder?
- He again notes the watch, maintaining that we may perceive it not to work, or fall apart, or work irregularly. However, Paley suggest we might respond, we can still understand why it works in the mechanical fashion it does, when it works,
- Paley emphasises in any event that what he thinks needs to be explained is the perceived purpose of the watch, whether it breaks down or not.
What does Hume argue of causation? How does this critique design arguments?
Hume maintains that causation is learnt a posteriori. In example, a child who has only seen a window break once, will not assume that what might be the common type of cause, e.g. throwing rocks, is the cause, as they have no experience of this. Even if they have seen it once, they may not suppose this, they might not suppose it to be more than a rare occurrence.
Hume argues on this basis, that we do not have enough relevant experiences to argue from analogy. In particular, we do not have enough experiences of different universes, or things like universes, or their creation. So we do not have any genuine experience of what universe-causes are like.
What counter-example could present an understanding of function without conceptual knowledge?
With the Antikythera mechanism was found in the sea off the island of Antikythera. This was clearly no ordinary piece of bronze. Rather, it was clearly perceived as being of some specific function. A most prominent theory, through reverse engineering, established that it worked as a orrery: a working mechanical model of the solar system.
No-one had seen this mechanism before, but they were still able to identify it as designed with a function, and able to determine with some probability what its purpose was.
Paley would suggest that it has specific features that are clear signs of design, and that this obviates Hume’s criticism. I.e. this mechanism was unique, with no experience with its ilk, yet it was still determined as designed.
How could Hume respond to the Antikythera mechanism counter-example?
Could accept that we have never encountered the exact same mechanism, but we may still be familiar with several other features and functions of the machine or its components.
Hume could thus suggest that in these cases we still do, in fact, have experience and empirical knowledge that allows us to recognise these mechanisms in question as designed. As a result, the watch and the Antikythera cases, and those like them, are not unique, unlike the cosmos.
How does Swinburne respond to Hume’s criticism from a unique case?
Swinburne responds by arguing that it is in fact common for natural scientists such as physicists to put forward arguments and theoretical explanations for unique phenomena, including the entire cosmos. Swinburne, therefore, thinks that Hume has an imperfect understanding of how natural scientists go about their scientific theorising and explanation.
