The Design Argument : Teleological Flashcards
FOR : What is the first part of Paleys argument? — Design qua Regularity
Paleys argument says that just by looking at the order and regularity of the universe we understand that God must exist. The order is evidence of a designer at work, since the regularity is too detailed and precise to be coincidental, thus, an omnipotent creator must be the designer of it. For example : seasons, night following day, and the fact that if the sun was any closer or further from the earth, it would be inhabitable.
Analogy for Design qua Regularity.
The Archer and Arrow analogy: this is the idea that an arrow (the unintelligent being) cannot achieve its end goal of hitting the target without an intelligent being guiding it. Thus, the archer (an intelligent being) must guide the arrow to the target. The same applies to God in the sense that since there is such an order and regularity to the universe, it suggests there must be an intelligent being directing all things. Since things that lack knowledge cannot reach their ‘telos’ without something with knowledge guiding it, this infers that the universe must be guided by an intelligent being— this being God.
FOR : What is the second part of Paleys Teleological argument— Design qua Purpose?
Paley argues that by looking at the evidence that everything in the universe fits together in a way that it always has a purpose provides evidence that this cannot be by accident but intended by a creator. It is logical to believe that everything is purposeful as a result of an intelligent creator rather than by chance.
Analogy for Design qua Purpose.
The Analogy of the Watch (made by Aquinas) : the universe is compared to man made machinery in which a designer fits all parts of an object together for a specific function, enabling it to work correctly. Paley uses the scenario of finding a pocket watch on the floor, we would assume the watch didn’t form alone through nature but had an intelligent designer who created it. We know this because we are aware it is made of complex parts (lens, click, metal) that fit together to create a purposeful function that was made by an intelligent being. Paley argues that the same concept can be applied to the real world and the complexity of our universe. For example, the human eye, this is made of many different parts that fit together in order to create a special purpose (lens, pupil, iris), therefore, by applying the same logic, this cannot have occurred by random chance thus must have been created by a designer. This designer being God.
AGAINST : What is My POV? — supporting Humes’ Epicurean Argument
The Epicurean Hypothesis argued that at the time of creation, the universe consisted of particles in random motion, which gradually evolved into an ordered system. Therefore, the universe is eternal and unlimited, and the order of the universe is not a result of a divine designer but of random particles coming together through time to form the current stable universe. This argument concludes that things can exist without creators and in terms of Paleys evidence, the universe can provide us with examples of this: Plants and spiders are self sufficient.
AGAINST : What is Humes objection to the Design Argument? — Problem of Evil
Hume argues that the Design Argument ignores all flaws and faults in the universe which may prove his theory wrong. For example: the analogy of the watch can be viewed as inconclusive since some watches are broken, thus this could mean that the Designer isn’t a wholly intelligent designer. The same can be applied with the faults in the real world, such as the existence of evil, pain and suffering, all of these decrease the likelihood (even if Paleys argument proves the existence of a creator) that they are unlikely to portray traits of a Christian God, merely due to the existence of suffering. Therefore the creator of our universe cannot be all loving, all powerful, and all knowing (traits of the God of Classical Theism) whilst still allowing the existence of evil.
AGAINST : What is Humes objection to the Design Argument? — Type of Designer
Hume argues that even if Paleys argument does prove the existence of some sort of creator, we cannot conclude that this is a single creator. Hume uses Paleys analogy of the watch and says that this analogy is insufficient as it assumes that the pocket watch was created by a single designer but lots of man made machinery had multiple creators. The same can be said with the universe, as there is no evidence which provides it was created in singularity. This goes against Paleys argument that the creator of the universe is one of Classical Theism as Christianity is a monotheistic religion (doesn’t believe in multiple designers). Who’s to say the universe wasn’t created by 10 Gods? Instead Hume would argue that it would be more sufficient to compare the creation of the universe with something self sufficient, such as a plant.
INTRODUCTION : Introduce the Teleological Argument.
> The Design Argument is an a posteriori argument based on observation of the apparent order in the universe and the natural world to conclude that it is not the result of mere chance but design.
It is an example of an inductive argument which means it poses some degree of uncertainty in its conclusions.
Aquinas came up with this argument making the basic assumption that there is order and design in the universe and that all things function to fulfil a specific purpose.
There are two parts to the argument : Design qua Purpose and Design qua Regularity.
