the teleological (design) argument

hume’s design argument

complexity and intricacy, huge coordination eg eye

parts serve purpose of the whole

order/ regularity throughout nature

suggests design > infer designer > God

hume’s design argument (logical form)

P1. In ‘fitting the means to ends’, nature resembles products of human designs.

P2. Similar effects have similar causes.

P3. The cause of human design products is an intelligent mind (intended design).

C1. So, the cause of nature is an intelligent mind - God.

hume’s design argument SHORT

analogy
complexity/ regularity > designer
nature resembles design, cause of nature = intelligent mind

objection to hume’s design: weak analogy

1. human design (eg watch) NOT alike nature/ universe

2. ‘great disproportion’ between part of universe and the whole > undermines inference

   So, cannot reasonably infer (cause of nature = like a mind)

objection to hume’s design: best explanation

must rule out other possible explanation

matter is finite but time is infinite? all arrangements of matter would occur

matter can affect mind eg pain (body? eternal?)

neither explanation is ‘better’

so, we should suspend our judgement

objection to hume’s design: unique case

inference is at odds with idea of causation

causation = relation between two object/ events, cause and effect, ‘constant conjunction’

need repeated/ many examples to determine cause

origin of universe is unique

no experience of a designer (must experience cause)

objection to hume’s design: useless designer

attribute properties to cause we NEED for effect

cannot draw useful conclusions without other designers or other worlds

hypothesis adds nothing

hume’s obj 1

universe NOT infinite > designer NOT infinite

God is infinite > designer NOT God

hume’s obj 2

universe is not perfect (mistakes eg illness)

BUT God = omnipotent

hume’s obj 3

designers NOT creators (following another’s design)

hume’s obj 4

small improvements by many? OR

powers to design united in one being?

BUT God = one

hume’s obj 5

mind always connected to body

BUT God = just a mind

hume’s obj 6

designers can die + creations continue

BUT God = eternal

Swinburne’s response to hume’s objs

science presupposes laws

other explanation of regularities = someone intentionally brings them about (God’s direct action on universe as a whole)

Swinburne’s response to obj 1 and 2

God’s traditional qualities will need to be established by other arguments

Swinburne’s response to obj 3 and 4

Occam’s Razor

shouldn’t suppose there is more that one being w/o positive evidence

uniformity = good reason > one designer

Swinburne’s response to obj 5

explanation requires no body

God operates throughout the universe, simultaneously

body = only act in a certain area of space

Swinburne’s response to obj 6

temporal order (what happens next)

requires agent acting at that time

God acts wherever the laws of nature hold

so, god must continue to exist

hume’s design argument essay plan

• hume’s design argument

• objections (analogy, explanation, unique, useless)

• objections (1 to 6)

• Swinburne’s response (1 to 6)

hume’s objs (1 to 6)

1. not infinite

2. not perfect

3. designer NOT creator

4. one

5. connected to body

6. die + continue

Swinburne’s response (1 to 6)

1 and 2 another argument

3 and 4 Occam’s Razor

5 requires no body

6 God continues

Aquinas’ Design Argument from analogy

compares natural world (which appears to have a purpose) and human activity (does have a purpose)

aquinas’ analogy (logical form)

1. things, lack intelligence eg living organisms have purpose

2. ^ cannot move toward end w/o direction from someone w/ knowledge and intelligence

3. arrow needs archer to direct

4. so, intelligent being directs unintelligent natural things toward end (God)

Paley’s design argument

P1. Parts organised for a purpose = design

P2. Nature contains parts…

C1. So nature = designed

P3. Design explained by designer

P4. Designer (be or have mind)

C3. So, such a mind, God, exists

Swinburne’s design argument

from temporal order rather than spatial order

no temporal ‘disorder’

evolution (an obj to spatial) relies of temporal order, so can explain spatial by explaining temporal

Swinburne (explanation)

P1. Some temporal regularities eg human actions have personal explanation

P2. Other temporal regularities eg operation o fthe laws of nature have pers ex

C1. Explain laws on nature in terms of a person

P3. No scientific explanation of the laws of nature

P4. Only two types of explanation – personal and scientific

C3. So, regularities produced by a person

C4. God exists

criticism of Swinburne and reply (laws)

no laws of nature, or laws change

REPLY: order and universal applicability of laws

criticism of Swinburne (God’s mind)

cannot prove complexity of God’s mind

if design needs an explanation, explain God too

must prove indubitable, otherwise science plausible too

essay plan - telological

spatial is weak but temporal is strong

hume and paley, objections

swinburne, objections and reply

swinburne, cannot explain god

so, all fail