★★Arguments based on observation: teleological and cosmological

A posteriori arguments

• Arguments which draw conclusions based on observation through experience.

• Depend on existence and observation using them to draw conclusions.

• They look at different possible explanations for whatever it is that we are observing or experiencing and draw conclusions about which explanation provides the best fit.

A priori arguments

Arguments which draw conclusions through the use of reason

Teleological

• Looking to the end results (telos) in order to draw a conclusion about what is right or wrong

• Teleological arguments use observation of order, beauty, and complexity to draw the conclusion that God exists.

• Teleological comes from the Greek word ‘telos’ which means ‘tail’ or ‘end’, because the argument uses the end results as a basis for drawing its conclusions.

Cosmological

• To do with the universe.

• Cosmological arguments use observation of the fact that the universe exists at all to draw conclusions that it must have been brought into existence by God.

Natural theology

• Drawing conclusions about the nature and activity of God by using reason and observing the world.

• Natural theology seeks to understand the existence and nature of God through observations of the world around us.

Leibniz and the principle of sufficient reason

• The principle that everything must have a reason to explain it.

• Gottfried Leibniz argued that there must be a ‘sufficient reason’ or explanation for everything.

• The universe requires a sufficient reason, and the only reason sufficient to explain the existence of the universe must be God.

• The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause.

• ‘Nothing takes place without a sufficient reason’

• Leibniz isn’t saying we can always know the sufficient explanation of something. We may not have the evidence or the intelligence to work out a sufficient explanation. But he argues that, whether we can solve it or not, there always IS a sufficient explanation and, as rational creatures, we are entitled to/have an obligation to seek it.

Ockham’s razor

A principle which says that the best explanation is usually the one which requires the fewest extra assumptions

Aquinas’ teleological (design) argument

• Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century when Aristotle’s ideas were new to the Christian world, Aquinas used Aristotelian ideas extensively in his Christian theology.

• Aquinas thought God gave us our reason so that we could learn about him.

• In his five ways, Aquinas gives five ways in which we can use reason to conclude God exists.

• The fifth of the five ways is a short teleological argument.

Aquinas’ arrow analogy

• He uses the example of an arrow heading for a target.

• If we saw the arrow in flight, we would conclude it must have been shot on purpose because arrows can’t move on their own.

• When we see the planets moving in an orderly way, we can therefore conclude that a divine mind must have put them in motion on purpose, because planets cannot move on their own.

Paley’s teleological argument

• William Paley lived in the 18th century.

• He set out his teleological argument in his book Natural Theology.

• Paley used the analogy of someone finding a watch on a heath, to show that when we see things working in an orderly and purposeful manner, we know they must have been designed.

• He said we see order and purpose in the world too, in the structure of animals and plants, and can conclude they must have been designed by God.

• We can tell from the care God put into creation that God must care for us.

Aquinas’ cosmological argument

• Cosmological argument addresses the question of why the universe exists at all, and concludes that it must be because of God.

• The first three of Aquinas’ five ways are variations of his cosmological argument:

1. The first way is the unmoved mover - we observe motion and change in the world. There must be a reason for it, which must be God.

2. The second way is the uncaused causer - we observe chains of cause and effect in the world. There must be a reason for it, which must be God.

3. The third way is contingency - we observe that everything in the universe depends on something else for its existence. There must be something else for its existence. There must be something that doesn’t depend on anything else, otherwise, nothing would have ever started, and this must be God.

Kalam argument

• The Kalam cosmological argument focuses on the coming into being of the universe. This shows the argument explicitly involves temporal causation. Causation is conceived in a horizontal sequence of temporal events. Effects then can continue independently of the causal activity of the temporally first cause.

• W.L Craig brought this argument to prominence in the late 20th century and named it ‘Kalam’ after the Islamic philosophy, which was first invented in the 11th century.

• Premise 1 → Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

• Premise 2 → The universe began to exist (an infinite regress is not possible).

• So, the universe has a cause of its existence.

The anthropic principles - F.R Tennant

• This is a principle that says the universe seems expertly fine-tuned to allow for human life to exist. It seems more likely that this fine-tuning is a result of deliberate design, than that it happened by chance against enormous odds.

• E.g. our atmosphere is composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and .03% carbon dioxide. If oxygen made up 23% or 19%, there could be no life on earth.

Aesthetic principle (awe and wonder)

• The aesthetic argument is based on a human being’s appreciation of beauty in the universe such as our appreciation of art, music, literature and other beautiful things. Darwin’s natural selection and theory of ‘survival of the fittest’ does not explain our appreciation of such beauty in nature.

• F.R Tennant argues that God’s existence is probable and states ‘nature is not just beautiful in places; it is saturated with beauty’.

• The aesthetic argument notes how the universe possesses a natural beauty beyond that which is necessary to live and, therefore, cannot be explained by Darwin’s evolution.

Copleston and Russell debate - COPLESTON’S ARGUMENT

• Premise 1 → Everything in the universe is contingent.

• Premise 2 → The universe is the aggregate of all the things in it.

• So, the universe is contingent.

• Premise 3 → Contingent things require an explanation.

• So, the universe requires an explanation.

• Premise 4 → An infinite regress of explanation is not an explanation.

• Therefore an entity that possesses necessary existence (aseity) is needed to explain the universe.

• Box of chocolates example

Copleston and Russell debate - RUSSELL’S ARGUMENT

• Russell argues that ideas can be ‘necessary’ - normally logical ideas, mathematical ideas or definitions like ‘a bachelor is an unmarried man’.

• These things are analytical propositions.

• He doesn’t think a thing or a being can be ‘necessary’.

• These things are synthetic propositions.

• The statement ‘God exists’ is a synthetic proposition (Russell claims) and, therefore, cannot be necessarily true in the way that 2+2=4 is necessarily true.

• Universe is a ‘brute fact’ - infinite regression.

• Just because all people and animals have a mother, this does not mean there is a mother of all mothers or the universe has a mother.

Hume’s criticisms of teleological and cosmological arguments

• David Hume was an 18th century sceptic philosopher.

• In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume criticised teleological and cosmological arguments for the existence of God.

• Hume argues that the analogy between the world and a watch is weak; the world is not very obviously like a watch in its mechanism.

• Order in the world does not necessarily mean that someone must have had the idea of the design - it is an essential part of the world’s existence. It could have come about by chance.

• The universe is unique, so we cannot know how universes are usually made or whether ours is unusually orderly.

Hume’s criticisms of teleological and cosmological arguments continued

• Just because the things in the universe have causes, it does not follow that the universe as a whole must have some kind of universal cause.

• Perhaps the universe is its own cause.

• We cannot look at the effects (the world) and confidently in the cause (God).

• It might not be the God Christians describe.

• It must be a God who is stupid, arriving at this design only after countless mistakes or copying someone else’s ideas.

• It might be a whole committee of gods, or angels or even demons.

Possible criticisms of teleological arguments

• The argument might be considered to have strengths because we can all see the world around us and appreciate elements of beauty, order and purpose. Such beauty, order and purpose on a global scale could be best explained by the existence of God

• Darwin’s theory of evolution through natural selection provides an alternative explanation for the characteristics of living things. Chance is another possibility. This might be considered a better fit than the God hypothesis.

• Not everyone sees the world as orderly and beautiful and purposeful. Some see it as chaotic, ugly, and pointless.

• As an a posteriori argument, it can only lead to a probable conclusion and does not prove anything.

Possible criticisms of a posteriori arguments

• They can be appealing because they usually use evidence that we can all see for ourselves.

• We don’t always see the same things when we look at the world, and our experiences are not always the same as other people’s, so a posteriori arguments do not appeal to everyone.

• A posteriori arguments try to find the ‘best fit’ explanation, but they can never be certain.

• Some new evidence might come along which creates a need for a new explanation.

• The need for constant review of a posteriori reasoning can be considered a strength as well as a weakness, as it discourages arrogance and encourages questioning.

Possible criticisms of cosmological arguments

• The argument might be considered to have strength because we all share the experience that the universe exists. God could be the best available explanation.

• Other theories suggest different explanations of the existence of the universe, such as the big bang theory, or chance. These might be considered a better fit than the God hypothesis.

• Not everyone thinks the universe requires any explanation.

• As an a posteriori argument, it can only lead to a probable conclusion and does not prove anything.

‘Hume presents insurmountable challenges to a posteriori arguments for the existence of God’ Discuss

Discuss critically the view that the existence of God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe

Assess the claim that Aquinas’ third way is more convincing than his first two