Teleological/design arguments Flashcards
hume’s design arg
- The ‘fitting of means to ends’ in human design (e.g. the fitting of the many parts of a watch to achieve the end of telling the time) resemble the ‘fitting of means to ends’ in nature (e.g. the many parts of a human’s eye to achieve the end of seeing things)
- Similar effects have similar causes
- The causes of human designs (e.g. watches) are minds
- So, by analogy, the cause of design in nature is also a mind
- And, given the ‘grandeur of the work’ of nature, this other mind is God.
Paley’s design arg
- Paley compares man-made objects, such as a watch, with certain aspects of nature, such as a stone. If you found a stone in a field, you might assume it had just been there forever. But that explanation doesn’t work for the watch.
- The reason for this is that a watch, unlike the stone, has many parts organised for a purpose. Paley says this is the hallmark of design
- Nature and aspects of nature, such as the human eye, are composed of many parts. These parts are organised for a purpose – in the case of the eye, to see.
- So, like the watch, nature has the hallmarks of design – but “with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater and more”. And for something to be designed, it must have an equally impressive designer.
- Paley says this designer is God.
why does Hume make his design arg
to later criticse it
Hume’s criticisms of his design arg
- PROBLEMS WITH THE ANALOGY
- SPATIAL DISORDER
- CAUSATION
- FINITE MATTER, INFINITE TIME
additional criticism of Paley’s design arg
evolution
prob with analogy
- We can observe human-made items being designed by minds, but we have no such experience of this in the case of nature. Instead, designs in nature could be the result of natural processes (what Philo calls ‘generation and vegetation’).
- The analogy focuses on specific aspects of nature that appear to be designed (e.g. the human eye) and generalises this to the conclusion that the whole universe must be designed.
- Human machines (e.g. watches and cars) obviously have a designer and a purpose. But biological things (e.g. an animal or a plant, such as a cabbage) do not have an obvious purpose or designer – they appear to be the result of an unconscious process of ‘generation and vegetation’. The universe is more like the latter (i.e. a biological thing) than the former (i.e. a machine) and so, by analogy, the cause of the universe is better explained by this unconscious processes of ‘generation and vegetation’ than the conscious design of a mind.
arg from analogy only as strong as the similarities between the 2 things being compared- weaken jump from man-made items being designed to whole universe being designed.
spatial disorder
If God really did design the world, Hume argues, there wouldn’t be such disorder. For example:
- There are huge areas of the universe that are empty, or just filled with random rocks or are otherwise uninhabitable. This suggests that the universe isn’t designed but instead we just happen, by coincidence, to be in a part that has spatial order.
- Some parts of the world (e.g. droughts, hurricanes, etc.) go wrong and cause chaos. Hume argues that if the world is designed, these chaotic features suggest that the designer isn’t very good.
- Animals have bodies that feel pain and that could have been made in such ways that they could have happier lives. If God designed animals and humans, you would expect He would make animals and humans in this way so that their lives would be easier and happier.
aim of spatial disorder
Hume argues that such examples of disorder show that the universe isn’t designed. Or, if the universe is designed, then the designer is neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent (as God is claimed to be).
causation prob.
-
never experince causation, only the constant conjunction of one evne following another
1. For example, experience tells you that if one snooker ball hits another (A), the second snooker ball will move (B). You don’t actually experience A causing B, but it’s reasonable to expect this relationship to hold in the future because you’ve seen it and similar examples hundreds of times.
2. But imagine that you take a sip of tea and at the same time your friend coughs. Would it be reasonable to infer that drinking the tea caused your friend to cough based on this one instance? Obviously not
3. You cannot infer causation from a single instance.
4. applying this to design arg, the creation of the universe was a unique event – we only have experience of this one universe. we can’t infer a causal relationship between designer and creation based on just one instance.
FINITE MATTER, INFINITE TIME
- assumes: time is infinite, matter is finite
- Given these assumptions, it is inevitable that matter will organise itself into combinations that appear to be designed.
- Given enough time, it is inevitable that matter will arrange itself into combinations that appear to be designed, even though they’re not.
evolution by natural selection
prob for paley’s arg
- theory of evolution by natural selection explains how complex organisms – complete with parts organised for a purpose – can emerge from nature without a designer.
- given enough time and genetic mutations – it is inevitable that animals and plants will adapt to their environment, thus creating the appearance of design.
3.
example of evolution to apply
it may seem that God designed giraffes to have long necks so they could reach leaves in high trees. But the long necks of giraffes can be explained without a designer, for example:
1. Competition for food is tough
2. An animal that cannot acquire enough food will die before it can breed and produce offspring
3. An animal with a (random genetic mutation for a) neck that’s 1cm longer than everyone else’s will be able to access 1cm more food
4. This competitive advantage makes it more likely to survive and produce offspring
5. The offspring are likely to inherit the gene for a longer neck, making them more likely to survive and reproduce as well
6. Longer necked-animals become more common as a result
7. The environment becomes more competitive as more and more animals can reach the 1cm higher leaves
8. An animal with a neck 2cm longer has the advantage in this newly competitive environment
9. Repeat process over hundreds of millions of years until you have modern day giraffes
what does swinburnes design arg distinguish between
Examples of order in nature (spatial order)
And the order of the laws of nature (temporal order)
Swinburne’s design arg
- Accepts science can explain spatial order
- says we cant explain temporal order using science
- For example, the law of gravity is such that it allows galaxies to form, and planets to form within these galaxies, and life to form on these planets. But if gravity had the opposite effect – it repelled matter, say – then life would never be able to form. If gravity was even slightly stronger, planets wouldn’t be able to form. So how do we explain why these laws are the way they are?
- Science can explain and predict things using these laws – but it has to first assume these laws. Science can’t explain why these laws are the way they are
- In the absence of a scientific explanation of the laws of nature, Swinburne argues, the best explanation of temporal order is a personal explanation.
- We give personal explanations of things all the time – for example, ‘this sentence exists because I chose to write it’ or ‘that building exists because someone designed and built it’.
- Swinburne argues that, by analogy, we can explain the laws of nature (i.e. temporal order) in a similarly personal way:
- The laws of nature are the way they are because someone designed them.
- That designer is God
Problems for Swinburne’s arg
- multiple universes
- is the designer god
