Teleological/Design Arguments

Question 1

Explain the basis of the Design argument.

Answer 1

• The universe didn’t have to be like this as there could have been no order + no regularity
• Order of this kind, the way parts work together for a purpose can indicate deign

If life involves the design( the way it seems as if the world has been designed by something/someone) by definition there must be a designer

Question 2

Explain Paleys Watch argument as ‘proof’ for the Design argument.

Answer 2

If you found a watch in a field, you would be right to infer that it had been designed - why?

The property of having an organisation of parts put together for a purpose is the basis

Paleys argument;

• Natural things exhibit this same property of having parts organised for a purpose
• The reproduction of living things does not explain their design (again could argue its pure evolution)
• If the inference of a designer is correct, in the case of the watch, it is correct in the case of living things

The designer of nature must be;
- A mind; design requires consciousness and thought
Separate from the universe - the designer cannot be what is designed.
Is the designer God?

Question 3

Explain Paleys argument for why God must be the ‘Designer’ of the universe.

Answer 3

It may be epistemologically impossible to know that humans are designed (just cause something looks as of it has been designed does not mean that it is).

• Anything that has parts organized to serve a purpose is designed + Nature contains things that have parts that are organized to serve a purpose
• Therefore nature contains things that are designed
  Design can only be explained in terms of a designer
• A designer must be or have a mind and be distinct from what is designed + Therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature
• Therefore, such a mind (God), exists.

Question 4

Explain Humes criticism against Paleys Design argument ‘Inference is the best explanation’ and Paleys response.

Answer 4

Hume: suggests an alternative explanation to a designer;

• Suppose matter is finite and time is infinite. Then all arrangements of matter will occur, by one, over time - (convergent - idea that overtime everything aims toward a particular thing)

Paley;
- Finite matter, infinite time is a bad explanation;
We have no evidence that matter pushes into new arrangements
- We know that the arrangements of matter change in accordance with the laws of nature
Time isn’t infinite - the universe began just under 14 billion years ago.

Question 5

Explain Darwins theory of evolution as a criticism against Paleys Design argument.

Answer 5

Darwin explained how the appearance of design is possible without design as genetic alterations happen randomly; most disappear but those that improve reproduction survive and spread in a population, altering the species

• Therefore such alterations are not actually ‘selected’ - natural forces secure there survival

So can argue Paley was wrong to say that organization of parts for a purpose can only be the effect of a mind.

• If some other explanation is as good as or better than or Paley invoking the existence of a designer, then paleys argument will fail.
• Millions of alterations in the traits of living creatures randomly take place ( most disappear wihout a trace) but some traits that coincidentally help a creature surive and reproductive and those genes are passed on generationally, over time this can lead to great complexity such as the human eye. Thus In time creatures appear to be designed when they are infact a product of coincidence.
• So we dont need to say that living things a actually designed by a designer nd thus god doesnt necessarily exist.

Question 6

Explain Swinburne Design argument.

Answer 6

• There are some temporal regularities that are explained in terms of persons
• There are both temporal regularities eg related to the laws of nature, that are similar to those explained in terms of persons.

We can by analogy explain these regularities relating to the laws of natures of persons because there is no scientific explanation of the laws of nature. If there’s a god it makes logical sense that the formed these regularities in order to sustain our existence because if certain equalities didn’t hold we would not exist.

• Science is inadequate + can’t explain these regularities so either theres some other explanation of them the whole way the universe is or it is a designer

thus there’s no better explanation of regularities relating to the laws of nature than the explanation in tems of persons (a designer) its incredibly unlikely they occurred by chance or coincidence

• Therefore such a person, who can act on the entire universe exists.

Question 7

State the 4 key arguments against Swinburnes Design Argument.

Answer 7

• Okhams Razor
• Arguing from a Unique Case
• The problem of spatial disorder
• Darwins theory of evolution

Question 8

Explain the Okhams Razor criticism of Swinburnes design argument and the counter + objection

Answer 8

Can object to Swinburnes design argument through
Okhams razor;

• One of the most important criteria is wether Swinburnes argument is simple - as okhams razor says ‘do not multiply entities beyond necessity’

However - Swinburnes introduces a new entiity - (the designer). For a designer to be a satisfactory explanation of design in nature we would in turn need to explain the designer. If the order of nature require explanation so does the designers mind.

Counter; A designer is necessary to explain the laws of nature and the universe + thus swinburnes explanation respects Okhams razor.

The scale and quality of the design reflect the power and ability of the designer, the universe int infinite so we cant infer that the designer is infinite.
- As god is thought to be infinity we can infer the designer is God

Question 9

Explain the criticism of swinburnes design argument ‘The problem of spatial order’

Answer 9

The problem of spatial disorder;

• The universe gives us no reason to say that the designer is perfect.
• Ilness and natural disasters can be evidence of mistakes in deisgn. As are certain features of human beings ie blind spots + the uselessness of certain parts f our anatomy
• If so, we should say that the deisgner isnt fully skilled but made mistakes.

By contrat God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenelolant so we cant infer the designer is God

Question 10

Explain the criticism of Swinburnes design argument ‘ Arguing from a unique case’ + Swinburnes response

Answer 10

Arguing from a unique case;

• Hume on causation;
  whenever you have the cause you get the effect (Constant conjunction)
  So you cant know from a single instance, what causes what (repeated experience is necessary to infer a causal relation. The universe is unique so we cannot infer its cause. We can only infer a designer in cases in which we have repeated experience of something being brought by a designer.

Swinburne response;

• But cosmologists have drawn many conclusion about the universe
• Uniqueness is relative to how something is described. (basically saying we can infer explanations because thats exactly what cosmologisists do ie big bang inferences) They draw all sorts of conclusions about the universe as a whole.
• So like paley swinbunes rejects hume argument hat we cant reach conclsions about the causes of a unique object such as the universe.