UNIT 2.1 Teleological Argument Flashcards
A-posteriori knowledge
A-priori knowledge
A posteriori knowledge is knowledge that comes from experience or observation. It’s the opposite of a priori knowledge, which is knowledge that’s independent of experience
A posteriori reasoning is a method of thinking that uses evidence or experience to draw conclusions. It’s often used in inductive reasoning, which involves using specific examples to form a general principle
Inductive arguments
+their characteristics
Inductive arguments= argument that dictates that if the premises (points in an argument) is true, then the conclusion does not necessarily have to be
Dan has strong legs= dan is a runner
- the premises may provide some support for the conclusion
- even if the premises are true, the conclusion can still be false
- usually argues the most likely conclusion
- cannot provide absolute proof
Deductive arguments
+ their characteristics
Deductive arguments= argument that dictates if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true (a logically sound argument)
— the sun in a ball of fire
Stars are balls of fire= the sun is a star
- it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion to be false.
- The premises provide absolute proof for conclusions and
- if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true.
Strength and weaknesses of inductive and deductive arguments
Allows ideas to be explored
encourages people to generate thought and knowledge
Makes an assumption (inductive leap)
makes the argument subjective
Based on evidence
conclusion undeniable
doesn’t rely on misinterpret empirical evidence
have to prove the premises is true
Telos as used by aquinas
Teleological argument
+bible quote about teleological argument
The Greek word used for the end result of some course of action
An inductive argument using a stereo evidence that looks at the natural world around us to determine the existence of God
“You gods eternal power and divine nature… Have been understood and seen through all the things he has made “- bible
Aquinas design argument
Qua regularity
‘Quinque viae’ = 5 ways
Aquinas attempted to reconcile Aristotle‘s work with a Christian viewpoint because he could see the dangers of making people choose between his work and Christianity
‘Qua regularity’= from regularity and observed regular patterns/occurrences in the universe such as the seasons and movements of planets.
Premises for aquinas’ teleological argument
1 - there is predictability and order in the universe, unconscious beings follow natural laws
2 - if things follow natural laws, they tend to do well and have some goal or purpose
3 - if a non-conscious thing cannot think for itself it does not have a goal or purpose and messages directed by something that thinks
The ‘guiding hand’ that causes the direction of these non-conscious things is God.
“They achieve this not fortuitously, but designedly”
Analogy of the archer
If an arrow came into a room you would immediately look to where the arrowhead come from as it is an inanimate object and wouldn’t have arrived there of its own accord therefore similarly to the universe
There is something present that is bigger than the intimate objects that is affecting that has caused these occurrences
Further evidence to support Aquinas argument
The paths tracked by the planet show the regular motion apparent in the universe and further support Aquinas argument for the existence of God
The Fibonacci sequence is a mathematical pattern in which each number in the sequence is the sum of the previous two numbers and has seen in many objects throughout the natural world such as sunflowers and waves
William Paley’s teleological argument
Argument ‘qua purpose’ focuses on how things in the universe seem to be well designed for fill a purpose
1 - complex parts each with a function that work together to achieve a certain purpose
2 - analogy of the watch – we would naturally assume that it has a maker
3 - similarly the universe has parts that function cohesively therefore it must have a maker
4 - the universe is far more complex and wonderful therefore its creator must be so too
5 - the universe’s designer is God
Parley is five evidences of design
+ the analogy of the eye
- The object has specific materials which enable it to fulfil his purpose
- Has several complex parts
- Exhibits regular motions which are enable it to fulfil its purpose
- The object has indispensable parts without which it could not fulfil its purpose
- If one of these parts break it would be unable to fulfil its purpose
“ there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it”
It follows all the five evidences of the design
How Paley’s argument aligns with a loving God
God wanted us to see and witness the beauty and splendour of the world allowing us to build a relationship with him and he cared enough about each individual to treat it with such affection and attention to detail
“ we see no signs of diminution of care”.
Paul Davies and the Goldilocks enigma
+ the anthropic principle
The conditions for life to exist are so delicate intricate and so unlikely that they could not have occurred by chance alone.
If you the strength of the Big Bang was different by one part in 10 to the power of 60 then life never would’ve developed.
Probability demands more of an explanation than just chance
Ockhams razor - God being a designer is the simplest way of resolving this and therefore it is true
The universe is configured in a way that allows the existence of life, including intelligent life and is used to explain why the universe seems so well suited or fine tuned for life
After R.tenant and the aesthetic principle
Tenant argues that nothing seen in Darwin‘s theory of evolution can explain why humans feel love and appreciation of art music literature and other beautiful things.
He argued that since these characteristics do not aid us in survival in anyway natural selection cannot account for their existence so our capacity for joy was put in as by our designer, namely God.
Strengths of the teleological argument
- can be observed using empirical evidence (Fibonacci sequence, the planets, the seasons)
- Gives an explanation and purpose to the universe and aligns with the Christian ideas of God
- Goldilocks enigma and anthropic principle
- The aesthetic principal
- Accepts the anthropic principle and governing laws of the universe
David Hume criticism one and two
1- analogy must be similar- the two things you compare must be similar. We cannot compare the universe to something like a house or something observable in our world because there is no real point of comparison.
“ And does not a plant or animal… They’re stronger resemblance to the world than does any artificial machine”
2- anthropomorphism- by comparing God to a human desire we limit him to a less than perfect being he is nothing like us neither designer nor artist
Hume’s argument four and five
4 - fallacy in assumption- the universe is a random association of atoms that have organised themselves in occasionally do so in a way that resembles order and design
Analogy of a spider- they create webs that are beautiful and perfectly organised. However they have a little to no brain power.
Links to Epicurean hypothesis- natural forces calmed and organised themselves to give the illusion of design
Darwins challenges to the design argument
It was random chance that organises life in the universe according to principles of evolution and natural selection “survival of the fittest”
The eye as a result of countless generations of genetic development and mutation and it appears to be designed because it has been fine tuned not due to a benevolent designer
John Stewart Mills challenges to the design argument
Links to David Hume‘s problem of evil
The suffering and evil in the world proves God’s nonexistence or at least disapprove that he is all loving
Nature is far cruel than the human mind and by the same logic that would lead parley and Aquinas to assume a creator that creator must then reflect the horrors of the world
“ the order of things in this life is often an example of injustice not justice”
Richard Swinburn’s argument from temporal order or regularities of succession
The order suggests designed because the universe could’ve just as easily been chaotic
Scientific discoveries, including evolutionary theory, describe these regular patterns but science cannot explain why these things happen
Swimburne argues that it is justifiable to consider this in terms of probability and argues that it is more probable that the universe comes about by design than chance
analogy of the card shuffling machine
Swingman argues that the appearance of an ace if picked considering that the odds are 1,000,000 to one demands more of an explanation
For him, it is not the fact that we perceive order rather than disorder but rather that there is order to perceive at all
Ockhams razor
