Teleologoical Arguments Flashcards
What are teleological arguments?
Teleological arguments are known as arguments from design
They try to show that some laws of nature are so perfect that they must have been designed by God
What it is Hume’s teleological argument?
P1. The ‘fitting of means to ends’ in human design resemble the ‘fitting of means to ends’ in nature
E.g the fitting of the many parts of a watch to achieve the end of telling the time resembles the many parts of a human’s eye to achieve the end of seeing things
P2. Similar effects have similar causes
P3. The cause of human designs (e.g watches) are minds
C1. Therefore, by analogy the cause of design in nature is also an intelligent mind
C2. Therefore, it is God
What is William Paley’s teleological argument?
Unlike the stone, the watch has many arts which are organised for a purpose (hallmark of design). Nature and aspects of nature, such as a human eye, are composed of many parts. These parts are organised for a purpose — in case of the eye, to see. S
So, like the watch nature has hallmarks of design, and for something to be designed it must have an equally impressive designer
P1. Anything that has parts organized 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 organised
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.
What is the problem with the analogy? (Hume)
- We can observe human made items being designed by minds. We can’t do the same thing with nature — designs in nature could be a result of natural processes
- Human machines obviously have a designer and a purpose (e.g cars, watches). But biological things like animals and plants don’t have an abvious purpose or designer e.g cabbage. They appear to be a result of unconscious ‘generation and vegetation’
The universe is more like the latter, so it is better explained by this, rather than the conscious design of the mind - An analogy is only strong if the things compared are similar. Since nature and human designs differ greatly, the jump from human-made objects to a designed universe is weak
What is the spatial disorder problem? (Hume)
If God did really create the design, there wouldn’t be such disorder:
- There are huge areas of the universe which are empty, this suggests that the universe isn’t designed and that we, by coincidence, just happen to be a part that has spatial order
- Some parts of the world (e.g droughts, hurricanes) go wrong and cause chaos. Hume says of the world was designed, this would suggest that the designer isn’t very good (NOT Omnibenevolent — contradiction to the definition of God)
- If God designed humans and animals, you’d expect them to be made for happier, easier lives. But since they suffer, this challenges the idea of a perfect designer
What is the spatial disorder problem? (Hume)
If God did really create the design, there wouldn’t be such disorder:
- There are huge areas of the universe which are empty, this suggests that the universe isn’t designed and that we, by coincidence, just happen to be a part that has spatial order
- Some parts of the world (e.g droughts, hurricanes) go wrong and cause chaos. Hume says of the world was designed, this would suggest that the designer isn’t very good (NOT Omnibenevolent — contradiction to the definition of God)
- If God designed humans and animals, you’d expect them to be made for happier, easier lives. But since they suffer, this challenges the idea of a perfect designer
What is the argument from causation? (Hume)
Hume says that we experience the ‘constant conjunction’ of one event following the other. If this happens enough times, we infer that A causes B. If one ball hits another (A), then another ball will move (B)
However, imagine you take a sip of tea and your friend coughs at the same time. It would be wrong to infer that drinking tea caused him to cough just based on this instance. YOU CANNOT INFER CAUSALITY FROM A SINGLE INSTANCE.
Applying this to teleological arguments, Hume argues that the creation of the universe was a unique event —we only have experience of this one universe. So we can’t infer a causal relationship between designer (God) and creation of the universe just based on this one instance
What is Finite matter / Infinte time argument? (Hume)
Matter is finite
Time is infinite
Given these 2 assumptions, it is inevitable that matter will organise itself into combinations that appear to be designed, even though they are not.
It’s a bit like the monkeys and typewriters thought experiment (monkey will eventually type everything over infinite amount of time, even if the probability is very low). With time its inevitable that monkey will write something that seems intelligent, even though it is hitting letters at random.
What is Darwin’s theory of evolution?
The key idea is that – given enough time and genetic mutations – it is inevitable that animals and plants will adapt to their environment, thus creating the appearance of design. For example, giraffes developing their long necks over time due to high competition for food.
This directly undermines Paley’s claim that anything that has parts organised to serve a purpose must be designed.
What is Swinburne’s argument from design?
Swinburne distinguishes between:
1. Examples of order in nature (spatial order)
2. Order of the laws of nature — The structured sequence of natural laws over time (Temporal order)
Swinburne accepts that science can explain the design of things like a human eye (spatial order) and so that Paley’s argument doesn’t succeed. However, he argues that we can’t explain the laws of nature in the same way. 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, if it was slightly stronger, planets would be able to form.
Science can’t explain why these laws are the way they are. The best explanation of temporal order is PERSONAL explanation. For example, this building exists because someone designed and built it. By analogy, the laws of nature are the way they are because someone designed them (God).
What is the problem of multiple universes? (Against Swinburne) — problem for temporal arguments
We could argue that the number of the universes is infinite — which is a popular view by among some physicists, then it is likely that the right conditions for life might occur by chance in some of them, without needing a designer. This challenges the idea that God is the ONLY best explanation.
Therefore, our universe might just be a lucky outcome of random chance, rather than evidence of the designer.
Is the designer God? — problem for temporal arguments
- Designers aren’t always creators (e.g a guy who designs a car doesn’t physically build it)
- Designers can die even if their creations live on. How can we know that designer is eternal, as God is supposed to be?
