teleological design arguments

Question 1

what are the three design/teleological arguments?

Answer 1

Hume (Cleanthes)

Paley

Swinburne

Question 2

give Hume’s design argument

Answer 2

1. in the organisation of parts for a purpose/fitting of means to end, nature RESEMBLES products of human design
2. similar EFFECTS have similar CAUSES
3. the cause of the products of human design is an INTELLIGENT MIND that intended the design
4. So, by ANALOGY, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design

Question 3

give Paley’s design argument ⏱

Answer 3

1. Anything with parts that work together toward a purpose is DESIGNED
2. NATURE contains things with parts that work together towards a purpose
3. so, parts of nature are designed
4. things that are designed need a DESIGNER
5. a designer must be a SEPARATE MIND from its design
6. so, the designer must be DISTINCT from nature
7. so, the designer mind is God

Question 4

give swinburne’s design argument

Answer 4

1. there are some temporal regularities explained in terms of persons (timetable)
2. there are other temporal regularities related to laws of Nature similar to those explained in terms of person
3. We could by analogy explain the regularities relating to the laws of nature in terms of persons
4. (as far as we know there are only 2 types of explanation — scientific, personal)
5. there is no scientific explanation of the laws of nature (they’re brute)
6. so, there is no better explanation of the regularities relating to the laws of nature than the explanation in terms of persons
7. so, temporal regularities relating to the laws of nature are produced by a person (a designer)
8. so, a designer exists

Question 5

what are Hume’s 4 criticisms of the design argument?

Answer 5

1. argument from a unique case
2. weak analogy
3. problem of spacial disorder
4. whether God is the best or only explanation

Question 6

explain the argument from a unique case critique of the design argument

Answer 6

we can experience the creation of man-made things

we can’t experience the creation of nature

as nature’s creation cannot be empirically experienced, it is a unique case and can’t be compared to the creation of man-made things

Question 7

explain the argument of weak analogy critique against the design argument

Answer 7

analogy can’t be made because:

1. ODD ONE OUT: complex nature is more similar to other ‘simple’ nature so should be compared to that, not other man-made objects
2. TRIAL AND ERROR: man-made objects change over time due to trial and error, but natural objects don’t, so analogy between them is weak

Question 8

explain the problem of spacial disorder critique against the design argument

Answer 8

flaws in nature exist e.g. ostriches can’t fly, people born blind
an omniscient designer would not design a world with so much disorder

Question 9

explain the critique of design argument that God may not be the best/only explanation

Answer 9

1. evolution
2. chance
3. multiple Gods
4. multiple universes

Question 10

features of Hume’s design argument (for comparison 12 markers)

Answer 10

spacial order
means towards an end
regularity
argument from analogy

Question 11

features of Paley’s design argument (for comparison 12 markers)

Answer 11

designer mind must be separate from designer
regularity
spacial order
means towards an end

Question 12

features of Swinburne’s design argument (for comparison 12 markers)

Answer 12

Ockham’s razor
inference to the best explanation
regularity
temporal order
natural laws are ‘brute’
argument from analogy

Question 13

25 marker assessing design argument

Answer 13

natural order doesn’t prove beyond doubt that God exists. spatial order fails. Temporal order provides a more convincing argument for the existence of God, but still ultimately fails to prove the existence of a single designer God with infinite attributes.

1. Paley’s argument for God.
   - BUT evolution
   - Swinburne accepts this, but there is temporal order which proves God
2. Swinburne, natural laws = brute, inference to the best explanation, Ockham’s razor, defends against evolution
   - BUT trial and error issue shows it is weak analogy (Hume)
   - BUT God isn’t the only explanation. Dawkins ‘God is not an answer at all’: multiverse theory
   - multiverse theory multiplies entities beyond necessity (not supported by Ockham’s razor)
   - multiverse still needs natural laws, which again is temporal order that needs a designer
   - BUT even if it isn’t multiverse or evolution, still no evidence it is God. Multiple gods? God as a designer but not a creator? Chance?
   - Swinburne: inference to the best explanation
   - BUT it is not the best explanation. No solid evidence, not actually proving beyond doubt that God exists