Teleological/Design Arguments Flashcards
What are the ways in which design philosophers see the universe as evidence of design?
- The way in which the parts of the world fit together and function, almost as if, like a machine, they have been designed that way.
- The way that living things appear constructed to be suitable to the environment they live in.
- The regularity and order of the universe and it’s physical laws
- The fact that life has developed in the world at all!
What are the 3 different types of arguments that are teleological?
- arguments from analogy: Put forward by Thomas Aquinas and David Hume
- Arguments to Design/Spatial order: Established by William Paley, most famously in his example of a watch.
- Arguments to Temporal order/Regularity: Richard Swimburnes argument regarding time and order.
- Design arguments are a posteriori; they are based upon based upon our observations of the universe.
Outline and explain Aquinas’s fifth way.
- It’s taken from the governance of the world. We see things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting nearly always in the same way so as to obtain the best result. They achieve their end due to their design.
- Whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.
- Therefore some intelligent bring exists by whole all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
Outline and explain David Hume’s argument from analogy.
-The intricate fitting of means to ends throughout all nature is just like the fitting of means to ends in things that have been produced by us.
(Similar effects have similar causes).
- Since the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer that by all the rules of analogy that the causes are also alike, and that the author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man, tho much he has much larger faculties to go with the grandeur of the work he has carried out.
- Hume outlines this argument not to establish the existence of God, it is actually to show how the reasoning presented in these areguments are flawed.
What are Hume’s objections to arguments from analogy?
- The analogy isn’t strong. The products of human design, such as a house or a watch, are not like nature or the universe as a whole.
- Also The ‘great disproportion’ between between a part of the universe and the whole universe also undermines the inference.
-Just the one creator God? We need to rule out the other explanations of parts for a purpose. Suppose matter is finite but time is infinite. Given that there are only a finite number of possible arrangements of matter, over infinite time, all the arrangements of matter would occur. Neither explanation is better.
- Arguing from a unique case. It takes many instances of one event following another to infer a causal relationship. E.g. snooker and ball. No relationship with drinking tea and sneezing example.
- You cannot infer
Outline and explain Paley’s teleological argument.
- Paley notices and focusses In upon is that the watch composes of a variety of features including spatial order and purpose:
- It has several parts.
- Those parts are formed together and work together for an end or purpose.
- The parts are made from specific materials, appropriate to their action and end.
- When placed together the parts produce regulated motion.
- If the parts were ordered in a different way, such motion would not have been produced.
- Paley Therefore concludes that the watch must have been designed and made according to that design.
How does Paley continue his reasoning in reference to a watch producing it’s own watch?
- Suppose That after a while the watch, on its own, produces another watch.
- It contains within itself all the robotic parts and tools for constructing a new watch.
- The second watch has been made by the first watch. Does this explain the design of the second watch?
- No, says Paley. The first watch simply mechanically constructs the parts of the second watch according to a design that it follows, but it doesn’t come up with that design.
What are the 2 claims Paley makes about the designer of the universe?
1) To design requires a mind- consciousness and thought. Because design requires that one perceive the purpose and how to organise parts to serve this purpose. Thus, God exists as a mind.
2) The designer must be distinct from the universe- because everything I. The universe bears the marks of design. To explain the design things in the universe, we must appeal to something distinct from the universe.
What is the formal argument from Paley that god exists?
P1. Anything that has parts organised to serve a purpose is designed.
P2. Nature contains things which have parts that are organised 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 and be distinct from what is designed.
C2. Therefore, nature was designed by a mind that is distinct from nature. C3. Therefore, such a mind (‘God’) exists.
How does Paley respond to Hume’s objections?
- Paley doesn’t offer an argument from analogy! He is arguing that watches have a property- the organisation of parts for a purpose- which supports the inference of a designer. Everything that has this property has this cause e.g. natural things.
- Response to a unique case: Even If we didn’t know how the watch worked, and had never seen a watch being made; we could still conclude that it was designed by a designer through our examination. We know enough about the causes of organisation of parts for a purpose to be able to infer, whenever we come across such organisations, that it is the result of a designer. Paley would argue that the case of the watch and of nature are no different, so we can still infer there is a designer.
What are the 3 parameters in which Swinburn outlined how his argument succeeds?
1st Parameter
-Design arguments can not prove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, supremely good being. Nor can they prove the existence of the Abrahamic God. They can show the existence of a ‘very powerful, free, non-embodied rational agent.
2nd Parameter
-His argument is based on analogy. Aware of the criticism that the analogy is too weak to support his conclusion. Instead He uses abductive arguments to conclude that god being responsible for the order in the universe is better than other explanations because it is a simple, unifying explanation. It’s the best possible explanation.
3rd Parameter
- We need to make a distinction between the two kinds of order.
- The first is spatial order (paleys argument) and Swinburnes is temporal order.
- Temporal order- This is the pattern of the way objects behave in time, for example a billiard ball moving when it is hit or a stone falling to the ground. His argument avoids the criticisms of Humes objections.
What are the 2 key strengths of Swinburnes temporal argument?
1- Such laws are considered universal; there aren’t parts of the universe that exhibit temporal ‘disorder’ even if they exhibit spatial disorder.
2-Appealing to temporal order explains the operation of the laws of nature that gives rise to evolution. The design evident in nature, is the very order itself.
Outline the criticism to Swinburnes temporal order based on Ockham’s Razor and the debate that follows. Response-Challenge-Response.
- Even if the explanation in terms of a designer is technically the ‘best’ we might not consider it a good explanation. Ockham’s razor says ‘do not multiply entities beyond necessity’. Swinburne introduces a new entity- the designer.
- Response: This isn’t an objection if a designer is necessary to explain the laws of nature. -Challenge: However we need still need to explain the designer for this to work.
-Response: This misrepresents explanation. Science is full of explanations that don’t explain what is assumed in the explanation. They will introduce and entity- e.g. a subatomic particle-
to explain something e.g. explosions in a nuclear accelerator. They don’t yet know how to explain these new entities.
What is the last challenge and then response regarding Swinburnes argument from temporal order?
- Challenge: If we always have something we can’t explain, why invoke a designer? Why not just say we can’t explain scientific laws?
- Response: Because invoking a designer explains one more thing, scientific laws, and we should explain as much as we can. This is a principle of science and philosophy!
- Conclusion- So at best Swinburne has proven the existence of a designer. It’s another step however to argue that this designer is God.
