philosophy - arguments based on observation

what are the two arguments based on observation?

the teleological argument and the cosmological argument

is the cosmological argument a posteriori or a priori?

A posteriori -> we find out about God from the evidence we observe in the world

what is the cosmological argument made up of?

Aquinas’s 3 ways - the fifth way is the cosmological argument

what is the cosmological argument based on?

is based on a perceived quality of the universe; such as cause and effect

what are the three ways?

1. Motion
2. Causation
3. Contingency

what is Aquinas’s first way?

• Everything that moves/changes in the universe has to be moved/changed by something else

Everything in motion is in the process of changing from a potential state to an actual state BUT this can’t go on infinitely -> must be a first mover to set the chain off

first mover must be unmoving + unchanging -> GOD

what is Aquinas’s second way?

• Everything in the universe has a cause

If there is no efficient first cause = no following causes/effects

The cause and effect chain can’t go on infinitely-> must be a first cause

The first cause must be uncaused + eternal -> God

what is Aquinas’s third way?

• Everything in the universe depends on something else for its existence (is contingent)

If everything is like this then at some point nothing existed which would lead to nothing existing now ( as there would be nothing to bring anything into existence)

there must be a necessary being because infinite regression of necessary things is impossible who is capable of bringing other things into existence

→ this must be God

what are the philosophical problems with Aquinas’s argument?

•Who or what caused God?

•God of the Gaps fallacy. Bertrand Russell – ‘the universe just is’ and requires no explanation.

what are Hume’s philosophical criticisms of Aquinas’s argument?

• Fallacy of Composition: . It is a fallacy to assume that what is true of a thing’s part(s) must also be true of the whole → just because everything in the universe seems to have a cause, it does not follow that the universe itself must have a cause.

  Russell - one thing to say every human being has a mother + another to claim the whole human race has a single mother

• Too big a leap from cause and effect to the Christian God - cannot go from an effect to a cause greater than that needed to produce the cause. We cannot go from evidence in the physical, space-time world of sense experience, to an infinite, spiritual, omnipresent God.

• Argument from effect to cause is more complicated than we imagine, Not always clear if x causes y, or whether it is simply a matter of correlation: whenever x, y.

• Against contingency – any being that exists can also not exist, by definition. Why does God have to be necessary? The universe could be necessary/ eternal.

  -> God’s nonexistence is impossible because of his ‘unknown, inconceivable qualities -> can’t assume that these qualities don’t belong to matter -> matter could be eternal + need no further explanation

what are the scientific issues with Aquinas’s argument?

•The Big Bang caused the universe, not God.

•William Temple: Infinite regression is logically possible - ‘it is impossible to imagine infinite regress, but it is not impossible to conceive it.’ E.g. numbers infinitely regress, so why not causes?

• because something involves an infinite regress, it doesn't automatically mean it's wrong or illogical. It might be problematic practically or epistemologically (in terms of how we know things), but not logically impossible.

•Quantum Physics suggests particles behave more randomly than we realise – not everything does have a clear, scientific cause and effect.

what are the religious issues with Aquinas’s argument?

• If God is outside space and time, how can he have an impact on our lives or send his son Jesus Christ or answer our prayers etc. The ‘uncaused cause’ is very unlike the God of Christianity.

• The Problem of Evil remains.

• Doesn’t fit with the Adam and Eve creation story – too intimate and involved, God walking in the garden of Eden.

what are the philosophical strengths of the argument?

It seems logical – from the premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause, to the universe began to exist, to the universe must have a cause.

We may as well call this cause ‘God’ as anything else.

what are the scientific strengths of the argument?

Like science, this approach uses evidence and observation. Most scientists now agree that the universe had a beginning, e.g. Stephen Hawking. The Big Bang is only a scientific description of what happened at the beginning of the universe.

• It does not explain why there is something rather than nothing.

what are the religious strengths of the argument?

It fits with the biblical view of God as creator – Let there be light’ God as cause of the big Bang. ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty’ Genesis

what are the problems with Hume’s argument?

• It makes sense to seek a full explanation of things -> Leibniz’s sufficient reason + Copleston argue it’s valid to look for this

• Modern physicists believe in the Big Bang (13.7 billion years ago) + the dominant belief is that there was a definite beginning -> difficult to believe in an eternal universe (counterintuitive of our experience) -> goes against Leibniz’s sufficient reason + “nothing can come from nothing”

• God is a special case -> human limitations shouldn’t limit God -> if God exists, he is against our direct experience

• Our empirical methods provide accurate info about the universe + is the basis of the scientific method -> common sense says we can infer cause + effect -> too sceptical

how does Leibniz respond to Aquinas’s cosmological argument?

• criticism of contingency

• explanation aquate which explains why a thing is there

• adequate - total explanation to which something cannot be added

• notion of God refers to sufficient reason

• existence of a being = needs to be an explanation of how and why it is like that and not something else

• needs to be a justified reason as to why it is the way it is and not something else

what are the strengths of Leibniz’s argument?

• Fits with the scientific approach that all things are explainable

• Closer to the Christian God -> ongoing relationship with the world, continual explanation for the way things are rather than a first cause

what are the weaknesses of Leibniz's sufficient reason?

• Russell -> some things aren’t explainable (e.g quantum physics, random particle movement -there isn’t a consistent set of scientific rules which explain everything even on a physical, quantum level)

• Russell -> fallacy of composition -> we see explanations within the universe + assume the universe as a whole has an explanation -> “the universe just is”

• Problem of evil - how do we explain natural evil

  Mill said “the government of nature cannot be made to resemble the work of a being at once good and omnipotent”

what type of argument is the teleological argument?

a posteriori because it is based on observation of the world around us.

which scholars contributed to the teleological argument?

Aquinas and Paley

what is Aquinas’s fifth way?

• Nature seems to have an order and purpose to it -> nothing inanimate is purposeful without the aid of “a guiding hand”

• Everything in nature which moves + fulfils a purpose must be directed to its goal by God

whose argument/ideas does Aquinas’s argument build on?

Aristotle's idea that there is an ultimate purpose/goal to everything (telos)

where does Aquinas say purpose comes from?

directly from the will of God

why does Aquinas argue purpose shows God exists?

we can observe purpose which must be directed by God

“They achieve their end by design and not by chance”

“Something without intelligence could not move towards an end”

“Arrow is directed by an archer”

what are the strengths of Aquinas’s fifth way?

• it is a posteriori – based on evidence – closer to many modern methods – much more convincing for a non-religious person.

• the argument is universally accessible – everyone can observe order and purpose in nature.

• the analogy of the archer is clear and seems to make sense.

what are the weaknesses of Aquinas’s fifth way?

•The purpose of some objects is hard to find e.g. a rock

•Some natural objects seem to have bad purposes, e.g. a mosquito – does that mean God is evil?

•Some would argue that the apparent order and purpose in the universe is in fact random and the result of chance – we are the only planet we know of in the universe with such order and purpose – what was God doing with all the others? Practicing?

•Can analogies be used to prove anything? The analogy of the archer may help to explain the point, but can’t be used as proof of the argument.

why do Camus and Sartre reject Aquinas’s fifth way?

would argue we make our own purposes.

why would Nietzsche reject Aquinas’s fifth way?

would argue that there is no meaning or purpose in life.

why would Dawkins reject Aquinas’s fifth way?

•would argue that we have no purpose other than that directed by evolution – to survive and pass on our genes.

who came up with the design argument?

Paley

what is the design argument?

• Things in our world are so complex and perfectly suited for their purpose that they couldn’t have come about by chance

• Something must have designed them -God is the only being intelligent + powerful enough to make the world

• God must exist

what was Paley influenced by?

Enlightenment science (e.g Isaac Newton -> viewed the world as a machine-like system)

what did Paley say about concluding that a watchmaker made a watch?

• Even if we had never seen a watch before

• Even if the watch didn’t work perfectly

• Even if the watch had some functions that we couldn’t understand

We would still conclude that it must have been a watchmaker -> it couldn’t have come into existence by chance

what did Paley say about similar effects?

Similar effects must have similar causes -> can't be chance but an intelligent designer (God)

why does Paley argue God exists?

• Compares machines to things in the natural world that are made up of parts fitting together to fulfil a purpose

• The natural world is more complex than machines must have been designed by omniscient, omnipotent God

• So God must exist

what examples does Paley use?

• Complexity of the human eye -> each part has a different role + all parts must work together for the eye to function + achieve its purpose (giving sight)

• Watch

what does Anthony Kenny say about Paley’s argument?

leads to a God which is not more a source of good than a source of evil - it is a being beyond good or evil

Kenny argues that Paley's argument could argue for a God that is the designer of evil and not good, which goes against God's omnibevolent nature. The argument leads to this idea that there is not some supreme designer, but instead that there must be a being beyond good and evil.

why does J.S Mill criticise Paley’s argument?

1. Mill bases his objection off the idea of the amount of natural evil in the world must have been a fundamental design.

2. Mill states that not even a twisted or inaccurate idea of good that could be backed up through religion or arguments from philosophers can make our world seem similar to the good, perfect world God created.

3. The main challenge to the teleological argument is that if our universe is flawed then we therefore must have a flawed creator.

4. The implications of this is that if these were purposefully designed then it is a very faulty design, and a designer who allows these things to happen would be very morally flawed.

how does Dawkin criticise Paley’s argument?

1. Evolution is the idea that individual organisms within a particular species show a wide range of variation for a characteristic and that individuals with characteristics most suited to the environment are more likely to survive to breed successfully. Natural selection is the process by which creatures develop randomly and the creatures that happen to be best suited to the environment survive while others who are not suited die out.

2. This refutes Aquinas's teleological argument as he saw that everything in the world was the result of a powerful designer. Darwin's theory of evolution undermines this idea as he argues that things are evolving randomly, with no evidence of design.

3. Dawkins challenged Paley's design argument in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" which establishes a naturalistic explanation for apparent elements of design in nature. Dawkins argues that the theory of evolution accounts for the development of life on earth and the 'design and purpose' in nature.

 

what are Hume’s main criticisms of the teleological argument?

- Aptness of analogy
- The Epicurean thesis
- Argument from effect and cause

what is the aptness of the analogy criticism?

- What we choose to say the world is like shapes the outcome of the argument

- Watches are machines so have machine makers but if we came across a cabbage we wouldn’t assume it had a maker as it is a natural object (self-regulating + growing)

- Could be argued that the world is a complex natural object

- By choosing a machine as his analogy Paley already determined the result he wants

why can aptness of the analogy be criticised?

Supported by evolutions + adaptation -> survival drives everything and the world is an internal mechanism -> doesn't need a designer

what is the epicurean thesis?

In an infinite amount of time anything can happen and any significant existence requires a degree of stability + mutual adaptation

Suggests something could display order without being made to by a designer (random) -> criticises Paley’s argument that order can’t come out of chance -> order can come from chaosl

- Borgas -> monkeys in a room full of typewriters analogy

what is the argument from cause and effect?

• We can’t go from an effect to a cause greater than that needed to produce the cause

• No evidence for link between cause + effect -> perceive or invent it

We can’t go from all the evidence in the world to God -> can’t make the link

what are the criticisms for the argument from effect and cause?

we explain the world through cause + effect chains - too sceptical, common sense + scientific method is based on + trusts this link

what are Hume's other arguments against the teleological argument?

- Problem of evil -> the universe is flawed therefore it can’t have been made by a perfect designer

- Committee of Gods -> complicated machines are usually made by a team of designers -> since the universe is complex it must have been made by a team of God’s

- “Morally ambiguous”/child God -> lots of evil in the world -> God can’t be omnibenevolent

what are the modern criticisms of the teleological argument?

F.R Tennant - Anthropic Principle

Richard Swinburne - Simplicity and Ockham’s Razor

what is F.R Tennant's Anthropic Principle?

- The world is exactly right to create the precise environment for man to evolve so it must have been planned E.g human life would not have been possible if the earth was further way from the sun or if the elements had been different

- The chance of our lives of using in such a well-adapted world is remote -> must have been planned

what are the criticisms of the anthropic principle?

Assumes that the entire universe exists for the sake of earth

• unlikely + should ask where the evidence for design exists in the wider universe (e.g in the remote, inhabitable galaxies -> what is their purpose, what design do they fit?)

what is Richard Swinburne's Theory of Simplicity?

The simplest explanation would be that God planned the universe

- Simplicity of the universe -> e.g few elements operating to the same simple laws which can be com knew in many ways but still follow the same sets of simple physics laws

- Ockham’s Razor -> when we have 2 or more competing theories, the one with the fewer hypotheses is most likely to be true

what are the issues with Swinburne’s criticism?

- Quantum physics would suggest that the universe is not regular -> on a subatomic level the universe is random + unpredictable

- May be chance that there happens to be a combination of elements which can function in complicated ways -> no more surprising than them following complex laws

- Is his explanation simple with the least assumptions? we can’t understand the mind of God and for an explanation to work we have to understand the explanation

what types of argument is the cosmological argument and teleological argument?

• a posteriori

• inductive

what is Aquinas’s 4th way?

argument from graduation of being

what is the argument from graduation of being?

a graduation to be found in things - some are better or worse

e.g. predications of degree require reference to the ‘uttermost’ case

the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus

therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness and every other perfection; and this we call God

why can it be argued that Aquinas’ cosmological argument is convincing?

• from observations, we can infer that there must be a first cause, mover and necessary being that we could call God

• Aquinas seeks to also explain why the universe exists

why can it be argued Aquinas’ cosmological argument is unconvincing?

• could be infinite regress

• what we understand to be cause and effect could be more like a correlation than a cause - may occur together but cannot be sure one caused another

• just because things within the universe are contingent it does not mean that the universe is also contingent

how does Anscombe criticise Hume?

argued that we can see existence as having a cause even if we don’t know which particular causes and effects are involved

what does Richard Swinburne say in response to Hume?

just beacuse we haven’t experienced the creation of the universe does not mean that there isn’t one - we should continue to search and test and make predictions → God may be the cause

how did Copleston reformulate Aquinas’s third way?

more specific and relies on sufficient reason

• first put forward by Leibniz - to explain the truth of a fact there needs to be an explanation as to why and how it is like that and not something else

needs to be a sufficiently justified reason - reason which explains why this entity is the way it is and not like something else = was God

how did Russel criticise Copleston’s idea?

• rejects the idea that we need sufficient reason for the universe - not everything in the universe has a reason and that to talk about the universe as a whole is nonsense as we can’t understand it all → ‘it is a brute fact’

• we can’t have direct experiences of God and so should not debate and since we cannot experience the start of the universe is it pointless to debate it

what is a strength of Aquinas’ teleological argument?

• supported by Cicero and Aristotle who both observed purpose

• science can explain this - laws of nature, Big Bang

what is a weakness of Aquinas’ teleological argument?

• the ‘guiding hand’ does not necessarily have to be God - it could be any other being

• is an inductive argument that relies upon a leap of faith (Hume fits well here)

what does Paley break down his argument into?

design qua purpose and design qua regularity

what is design qua purpose?

argument that the universe appears to have been designed to fulfil some purpose

e.g. the eye - ‘the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it’

nature is full of intracies and examples of beneficial design so must need an intelligent designer

what is design qua regularity?

argument that the universe appears to behave according to some order or rule

• order and predictability don’t arise from nothing - a designer needed to put order into place

how does Mill criticise the teleological argument?

if it was real it would lead to a strange idea of God

• look at the world and rules that govern it - cruelty, violence and unnecessary suffering

• ‘nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature’s every-day performances’

what does Darwin effectively achieve?

• chance is not what caused us

• explains extinction, changes across species and how living things have a common foundation

• explains order without making it anthropogenic

• suffering and evil are explained

where are the gaps in Darwin’s argument?

• does not have an origin - cannot explain how or why life started to evolve, Darwin believed there was room for God

• requires the planet to already exist

what argument did Behe put forward against the teleological argument?

irreducible complexity

what is irreducible complexity?

argues ns is not capable of making all the complex natural things in our world without help

Irreducible complexity is the idea that some biological systems are too complex to have evolved step-by-step through natural selection, because they need all their parts to work — if even one part is missing, the whole system fails.

need all parts to work — so they couldn’t evolve slowly.

found in Behe’s book - inside the black box

what does irreducible complexity state?

some parts of ns are too complex to have occurred by chance

evolution is the mechanism of progress but the foundation of life was created by a God

e.g. the mousetrap and the flagellum

Supporters of Intelligent Design, especially Michael Behe, argue that:

• The flagellum has around 40 parts.

• If even one key part is missing, the whole system won’t work — no spinning, no movement.

• Therefore, it couldn’t have evolved step-by-step by random mutations, because incomplete versions wouldn’t function and thus wouldn’t be “selected” by evolution.

why can irreducible complexity be criticised → reducibility?

• Researchers have demonstrated possible evolutionary pathways for systems that were claimed to be irreducibly complex, like blood clotting and the immune system.

• Scientists from East Tennessee State University found that "redundant complexity" (where simpler systems combine over time) can explain these systems.

• Behe’s arguments are criticized for oversimplifying biology and relying too much on metaphors like a mousetrap.

• Studies in the journal Nature and computer simulations confirm that complex features can evolve naturally.

• Evolution doesn’t just make things more complex—it can also simplify systems over time.

• Some scientists suggest that what seems irreducibly complex might have originally formed in a more complex way before simplifying.

how can irreducible complexity be criticised - falsifiability?

• Scientists argue that irreducible complexity and intelligent design are not scientific because they are not falsifiable (i.e., they can't be tested and proven wrong).

• Behe suggests that if bacteria without flagella evolved them under selective pressure, his theory would be disproven.

• Other scientists claim experimental studies, like those on E. coli by Barry G. Hall, already contradict irreducible complexity.

• Computer science provides further evidence against it—evolutionary algorithms, which mimic natural selection, create complex solutions without a designer.

• These algorithms can produce systems that appear irreducibly complex, just as natural processes can, proving that complexity can evolve without intelligent design.

how did Emilie du Chalet use Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason?

formed her own version of the cosmological argument:

every existing thing must have sufficient reason - universe exists and is a contingent being

= must have a sufficient reason to exist which must be a necessary being of its own nature

= God exists as a reason for the universe

how does Russel criticise principle of sufficient reasoning?

Russel rejects a sufficient reason for universe → universe is just there - a brute fact

fallacy of composition - sufficient reason for a human to universe

we can’t have direct experiences so we should not debate and cannot experience the start of the universe

word necessary only applies to analytic statements

how does Lee criticise the cosmological argument?

Rejects argument as it makes God out to be something or nothing. Lee doesn’t believe that God can be in his own category, like Aquinas. By doing so, Aquinas makes an ad hoc hypothesis.

how does Kant criticise the cosmological argument?

The argument goes beyond our experience & therefore cannot be a proof. The idea of a necessary being is incoherent, necessity only applies to thought, it can’t apply to a being. Knowledge is limited to the phenomenal world

how does Copleston criticise the cosmological argument?

Everything in the universe is contingent. The contents of the universe cannot contain the cause of the universe. The cause has to be external & self-causing, a necessary being. We should seek an explanation.

how does Hume criticise the teleological argument?

Order doesn’t imply design, chance is still an option (Dawkins says that evolution gives the appearance of design). He argues that order is a necessary part of the Earth, without it, Earth wouldn’t have survived. We can’t go from an effect to a greater cause. If like effects have like causes, then an imperfect world implies an imperfect creator. The watch analogy is too vague, you can’t compare the world to a machine.

how does Swinburne critcise the teleological argument?

Accepts the Anthropic Principle, but it does not conclusively prove that God exists, but makes his existence more probable. God would have chosen to create an orderly universe, so evolution could be a part of the design.

where did Aquinas write the 5 ways?

summa theologica

what are the names of the first, second and third ways?

1st - unmoved mover

2nd - uncaused causer

3rd - contingency and necessity

what are Hume’s 2 criticism of the cosmological argument?

• fallacy of composition

• fallacy of affirmation of the consequent

what is Hume’s second criticism of the cosmological argument?

• assume a relationship between cause and effect as we are in the habit of seeing effects and associating them with causes

• but as a matter of logic not all effects have causes

how does Mackie support Hume’s second argument?

why should people accept that God is the necessary being?

why can it be seen that a watch must have been designed?

• complex

• intricate piece of machinery

• shows workmanship

• all cogs are intertwined

• all parts work together in order to reach its purpose

how does Paley move from the eye to the universe?

whole of nature needs greatest of all designers which must be God

why does Aquinas argue there must be a designer?

objects perform their job efficiently so they must have been designed that way

• objects follow natural laws