Teleological arguments (GOD) Flashcards
Teleology meaning + general strategy
end, purpose or goal-orientated
- They look at the apparent purpose in the world and conclude that this must be as a result of a designer (God).
- Inductive and a posteriori; they try to argue that there is a high probability that god exists based on a posteriori experience design apparent in the universe.
HOWEVER -> Swinburne is abductive as he tries to explain God as the free agent of temporal regularities in nature is the best explanation
what is the difference between the approach taken by teleological arguments
Cosmological and Ontological arguments are a priori and deductive , whereas teleological arguments are a posteriori and inductive.
-> TA’s do not make any reference to the concept of God to prove its exitsence.
Hume’s design argument from analogy (note: hume does not believe in this arg!)
P1: In the ‘fitting of means to ends’, nature resembles the products of human designs.
P2: similar effects have similar causes.
P3: the cause of the products of human design is an intelligent mind that intended that design.
C1: Therefore, by analogy the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design, and so God exists.
(objects in nature resemble human designs…
eg cup -> cup maker
world -> world maker (GOD)
What does Hume mean by nature resembles the products of human design because it has ‘means to ends’?
There is a kind of order to the universe where things designed by humans have parts that help them fulfil a purpose = Nature has the same quality.
-> eg an eye has parts that allow it to achieve sight, similar to a camera.
-The coordination and intricacy of the universe suggests that living things have been designed. TA’s infer from this order and regularity of the universe that God exists and designed the universe.
Why might Hume’s design arg from analogy be convincing?
Does appear to be similarities between things in nature and things designed by humans
-> EG humans design cups to allow us to drink water and not die of thirst = Nature created eyes to allow us to see and survive
The natural world is composed of parts like human designs with a purpose (telos)
Objection to Design arg: Hume’s weak analogy
An analogy: a comparison of something with something else to assist understanding (strengthened by the amount of similarities between the two).
1) strong analogy: similarities are apt and convincing.
2) weak analogy: similarities are not apt nor convincing.
Hume’s Design is a weak analogy as the products of human design are NOT like those found in nature.
- Human designs have a clear/particular purpose( can observe a watchmaker)
- natural things don’t
= few similarities and a large number of differences between the universe and nature SO
= This means we can conclude little about what (if anything) designed the universe.
+ the argument also ‘cherry picks’ the similarities ; Choosing only those parts of the analogy that support its conclusion ignoring those that don’t (eg Concludes, the designer has some human traits such as intelligence and skill, but ignores selfishness and lust for us).
Objection to Hume’s Design arg: Is a designer the best/only explanation? (Hume)
1) If matter is finite and time is infinite then there would be a finite number of ways that matter can arrange itself, it will eventually arrange itself in every possible way (including ways that seemed to be designed).
- This ‘design’ would be sheer chance> intelligence.
2) If we infer that intelligence must have created natural things (like human-designed things), does this creator have other similarities like us (eg a body/mind).
- If so, this would go against the concept of God as God is incorporeal…so it is not clear how far these similarities should go.
= monkey and typewriters
Objection to Hume’s Design arg: Argument from a Unique Case (Hume)
P1: Causation is something demonstrated a posteriori (via experience).
P2: It can only ever be inferred through observations> certainty.
C1: We need repeated experiences of causation to make this inference.
P3: The issue with ‘intelligent design’ is that we can only ever have one experience of it.; only one experience of God designing the universe (a unique case). P4: This is not enough to justify the inference of a causal relationship.
C2: Therefore, we are not justified in claiming that natural things are the result of an intelligent mind - undermining the conclusion that God exists as this intelligent designer.
(arg from constant conjunction)
Paley’s Design Arg from Spatial Order
P1: Anything that has parts, organized to serve a purpose, is designed.
P2: Nature contains things which have parts that are organsied to serve a purpose.
C1: Therefore, nature contains things which are designed.
P3: Design can only be explained in terms of a designer.
P4: A designer must be , or have, a mind that is distinct from nature.
C2: Therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature. Therefore this mind is God - so God exists.
Spatial order: Where different parts exist at the same time in an ordered way to serve a purpose. =This is Paley’s hallmark of design.
Paley Parts
Paley’s -watch and eye comparison to support his spatial order arg
-A watch is found on the ground in a forest.
We would not imagine that it simply just appeared, as we can observe the complexity of it, noticing that its parts seem to come together in a particular way to achieve some sort of goal. We would assume that the watch must have been made by an intelligent designer.
= We can easily spot the teleology’s (purpose) of man made objects so can inductively conclude someone must have designed it. This is the same with nature…
He uses the example of the eye to show that there are things in nature that bare the signs of design.
-> an eye seems to have a purpose as its parts are complex to achieve some sort of goal (sight).
-> Someone must have created our eyes…this is GOD.
Design requires…
1) a mind/consciousness: to conceive of a purpose and has the ability to organize parts.
= SO, everything in the universe (and the universe itself) have the marks of design. =Therefore a designer must exist distinct from the universe as the universe cannot cause itself.
Strengths of Paley’s design arg from spatial order)
Paley is not making an argument from analogy = He is not saying that nature is like a watch. He avoids a weak analogy.
He uses the watch as an example of design and then sees if there’s anything in nature which also bears these marks.
He is arguing that anything with spatial order must be designed. Therefore Paley is not susceptible to the fallacy of composition or the criticism of using a weak analogy.
The problem of spatial disorder (Hume)
+ weak response
= It is not clear why Paley should focus on spatial ORDER in nature, when it is outweighed in amount by spatial DISORDER.
Spatial disorder ; a lack of different parts organised to serve a purpose
Examples;
- Large areas of the universe are empty : no purpose, perhaps just coincidental
- chaos like volcanos, earthquakes etc : disorder
- animals have been given bodies that get I’ll : did the designer lack love or power to allow organisms to feel less pain?
-If there was still a designer -> they lack power, knowledge/goodness to create such a universe , undermining the concept of God (so cannot be God).
R->
It doesn’t matter whether a watch actually works well, it still has qualities that indicate it has been designed. The same goes for the universe - spatial disorder does not get rid of the evidence that parts function together for a purpose.
WEAK R AS…
His response undermines his argument from spatial order (self defeating).
Is a designer the best/only explanation : Evolution and Natural Selection (against Paley’s spatial order) KILLER ARG!!!!
= This argument looks at using an empirical explanation (evolution/NS) to explain spatial order> designer.
- Natural selection accounts for spatial order we find in organisms. This allows us to explain the spatial order we observe in nature, but without invoking the existence of an intelligent mind (designer) to do so.
- If this is more convincing than the notion of a designer , we can reject the latter parts of Paley’s argument - he is not justified in concluding that there must be an intelligent mind behind spatial order.
-> more convincing than a designer as empirical/scientifically tested.
The design argument from TEMPORAL ORDER (Swinburne’s TA)
P1: Temporal regularities occur either as a result of…
a) human free action (apple hit by brother)
b) natural phenomena (apple falling tree)
P2: Temporal regularities of human free action can be explained by rational choices of free agents because of intelligence, power + freedom.
P3: Temporal regularities of the laws of nature can be explained by other fundamental laws of nature (not scientific exp).
P4: TR produced by human agency similar to TR produced by laws of nature (analogy)
P5: Universe is immense and complex
C: Therefore, the best explanation (abductive) for TR in the universe is the existence of a rational agent with intelligence, power + freedom to create such a complex TR of the universe. ( a personal explanation)
Temporal regularities/order = the predictability or orderliness of how one thing follows another (in time)
Why does Swinburne claim only a personal explanation can account for temporal order?
scientific explanations: A reductive approach that sees a deeper (more fundamental) explanation for phenomena we observe.
-> They cannot go any further - cannot reduce these to more fundamental laws.
-> Either these remain unexplained or they must be ‘bruts axiomatic facts’ (assumptions necessary to explain things in the universe).
MUST BE EXPLAINED VIA A -> personal exp: : Appeals to free will + intentionality to explain why people choose the actions that they do.
= So, he claims we cannot give a scientific explanation of the laws of nature, so we must turn to other forms (personal)
