Studied by 0 people
- teleological argument (Aquinas's Fifth Way, Paley) - cosmological argument (Aquinas's first three Ways) - challenges to arguments from observation (Hume; evolution) discuss: - whether a posteriori or a priori is the more persuasive style of argument - whether teleological arguments can be defended against the challenge of 'chance' - whether cosmological arguments simply jump to the conclusion of a transcendent creator, without sufficient explanation - whether there are logical fallacies in these arguments which cannot be overcome
a posteriori arguments
arguments that start with observation of some part of existence we can observe & move to argue that the best explanation for existence being this way is that God is the cause of what we can observe
What observation does the cosmological argument start with?
starts with observation that something exists (the universe) & moves to the conclusion that this something (the universe) only exists because something caused it to come into existence — the best explanation for this must be God
which arguments start with observation that something exists (the universe) & moves to the conclusion that this something (the universe) only exists because something caused it to come into existence?
cosmological arguments
What observation does the teleological argument start with?
nature displays certain attributes (e.g. order, complexity, purpose) which could not have arisen from nature itself. Therefore, something other than nature must be responsible for this order, complexity & purpose we observe — the best explanation is God
Which arguments start with the idea that nature displays certain attributes (e.g. order, complexity, purpose) which could not have arisen from nature itself?
teleological arguments
inductive reasoning
inductive arguments use evidence to try to persuade you an argument is correct
as they are based on observation, there is always the possibility that evidence might be incorrect/new evidence might occur which challenges the conclusion of the argument
therefore, the conclusion of inductive arguments is only ever the most probable answer given the strength of the evidence
type of argument which uses evidence to try to persuade you an argument is correct & comes up with the most probable answer given the evidence
inductive reasoning
what conclusion does the cosmological argument come up with? (inductive reasoning)
the most probable explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was caused to come into existence by God
what conclusion does the teleological argument come up with? (inductive reasoning)
the most probable cause for the existence of order, complexity & purpose in nature is that these attributes of nature were caused by God
synthetic argument
rely upon having a rational concept of what a thing is (a definition of that thing) & observing the world to see if there is any empirical evidence that would show something actually exists which matches the concept
synthesising our concepts with our observations
we have a concept of God & use our observations to see if our observations of the physical universe show our concept of God has real existence
type of argument which relies upon having a rational concept of what a thing is (a definition of that thing) & observing the world to see if there is any empirical evidence that would show something actually exists which matches the concept
synthetic argument
Which three explanations can provide evidence for the existence of a universe (cosmological) which is ordered for a purpose (teleological)? (according to Aquinas)
Chance — the universe is the way it is (its existence & structure) due to chance
Physical nature — the universe’s existence & structure can be fully explained by examining the physical universe itself
God (the transcendent) — the best explanation is that a transcendent being created the universe with a certain structure to fulfil a purpose
summarise the cosmological argument
Why is there something rather than nothing?
What is the best explanation for why the universe exists?
First Way — the argument from movement (change) — the unmoved mover
Second Way — the argument from cause & effect — the uncaused cause
Third Way — the argument from contingency — a necessary being
each of these arguments rely on the idea we cannot answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing if there is an infinite regress (no starting point)
if this was the case, we would not be able to observe the universe we observe now
therefore, the universe must have had a beginning & the best explanation for how it began is God
summarise the teleological argument
Given that the universe exists, why is it structured in the way I observe it?
What is the best explanation for the existence of the order & structure of the universe?
in nature, we almost always observe things achieving the same end (goal/purpose)
e.g. 2 atoms of hydrogen & 1 atom of oxygen always make water
e.g. law of gravity is predictable
analogy between archer & God
just as the arrow (which lacks knowledge) requires an intelligence (the archer) to achieve its end/purpose (hitting the target), the processes of the natural world (which lack knowledge) require an intelligence (God) to achieve their end/purpose (e.g. an eye which can see, an apple tree growing from an apple seed, H2O always producing water)
regularity of succession
in nature, we almost always observe things achieving the same end (goal/purpose)
idea that in nature, we almost always observe things achieving the same end (goal/purpose)
regularity of succession
Aquinas’s use of analogy in the teleological argument
analogy between archer & God
just as the arrow (which lacks knowledge) requires an intelligence (the archer) to achieve its end/purpose (hitting the target), the processes of the natural world (which lack knowledge) require an intelligence (God) to achieve their end/purpose (e.g. an eye which can see, an apple tree growing from an apple seed, H2O always producing water)
Paley’s version of the teleological argument
effect: complexity & order with purpose — design — requires a designer
cause: an intelligent being (a watchmaker)
effect: complexity & order with purpose — design — requires a designer (an intelligent being — God)
deism
the belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it & permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws
the belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it & permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws
deism
theism
belief in the existence of a god/gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it & sustaining a personal relation to his creatures
belief in the existence of a god/gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it & sustaining a personal relation to his creatures
theism
atheism
disbelief/lack of belief in the existence of God/gods
disbelief/lack of belief in the existence of God/gods
atheism
agnosticism
the belief that evidence points to neither the existence of God, nor the non-existence of God
the belief that evidence points to neither the existence of God, nor the non-existence of God
agnosticism
the classical concept of God
concept used in Western philosophy & theism to understand what is meant when discussing God (attempts to define God)
examining the attributes of such a being will help clarify arguments about its possible existence
what questions is the cosmological argument trying to answer?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
What is the best explanation for why anything exists at all?
features of the cosmological argument
a posteriori— based on observations of universe
inductive — examines the evidence to build argument for most probable conclusion
synthetic — tries to combine our concept of God (classical concept of God) with our observations of the universe to show the best explanation for the existence of the universe is that God caused it to come into existence
the universe cannot account for its own existence — there can’t be anything intrinsic to the universe which caused it to come into existence
therefore, it requires an extrinsic cause as the reason for its existence
as space & time are intrinsic aspects of the universe, whatever caused it must exist outside of space & time because physical world is incapable of being reason
Aquinas’s First Way
everything which is in motion/undergoes change has to be put into motion or changed by something else
things stay the same unless a force acts upon them to make them move/change
links with observation
starts with observation of motion & change
this sequence of one thing changing another cannot be infinite — there must be a reason for how this movement (change) began
therefore, there must have been an Unmoved Mover to set the sequence off
What did Aquinas believe about the attributes of God?
must be perfect — cannot change because he is responsible for the change we observe in the universe, also an imperfect being would have the potential to become perfect so would lack something
must possess omni-qualities
must be transcendent of physical universe — responsible for it
Aquinas’s Second Way
similar to First way but replaces idea of change & motion with concept of cause
every ‘effect’ has a ‘cause’. An infinite regress is impossible, therefore there must be a First Cause which we call ‘God’
Aquinas concentrates on idea of efficient cause, borrowed directly from Aristotle’s four causes
an effect cannot cause itself
something prior to the effect (a cause) is necessary for it to happen
every effect in the world has a cause
there can’t be an infinite regress of causes — there would be no ultimate effect (a universe capable of being observed)
Aquinas: God as creator & sustainer of the universe
a criticism of Aquinas’s first two ways could be that it, at best, proves the existence of a deistic God
however, Aquinas is attempting to prove the existence of a theistic God, which interacts with & cares about the universe it has created
once properly understood, it can be seen that Aquinas uses his first & second ways to prove the existence of a theistic God (the sustaining action of God allows for the regularity of succession we observe)
Aquinas’s Third Way
The world consists of contingent beings:
have beginning & end to their existence
depend upon something external/extrinsic to themselves for their existence
do not have to exist
As well as for their initial existence, contingent beings also require something external to themselves for their continued existence (e.g. the leaf requires the continued existence of the tree for its own continued existence)
Everything in the world is contingent (can either exist/not exist & require something other than themselves to bring them into existence & sustain their existence)
If things exist, there must be a time when they did not (a contingent thing is not eternal)
Therefore, given an infinite amount of time, there must logically have been a time when nothing existed
Things exist now (a posteriori)
Therefore there must be something, which isn’t contingent, on which every contingent thing depends for its existence
This must be a Necessary Being (does not depend on anything for its existence — is eternal & cannot not exist) — God
Was Aquinas trying to prove the existence of the Christian God with his three ways?
No, he was simply demonstrating that what was required for existence & continued existence of the universe was some being that existed transcendent of (outside & prior to) the universe
The demonstration that this Necessary, Uncaused Cause, Unmoved Mover was the God of Christianity must come through another argument or through faith
What questions are teleological/design arguments trying to answer?
Why is the universe structured in the way that it is?
Given that the universe exists, why does it exist in this particular way?
Aquinas’s Fifth Way (teleological argument)
Aquinas uses Aristotle’s concept of the Final Cause, which provides the end/reason/purpose for the existence of the process
e.g. for spoons — the need for humans to scoop food into their mouths
In favour of regularity of succession — things in nature follow certain laws which lead to certain results
This regularity could not be fortuitous (by chance) so requires an explanation (e.g. 2 hydrogen atoms & 1 oxygen atom always make water; law of gravity is predictable
Analogy between archer & God — just as arrow (which lacks knowledge) requires an intelligence (the archer) to achieve its end/purpose (hitting the target), the processes of the natural world (which lack knowledge) require an intelligence (God) to achieve their end/purpose (e.g. an eye which can see, an apple tree growing from an apple seed, H2O always producing water)
Out of these 3 options, 3 is the only viable one:
the regularity of succession happens fortuitously (by chance)
natural bodies can bring about their own ends (the order in the universe can be explained by the things within it)
something transcendent of the natural world, that has intelligence, is responsible for the regularity of succession we observe
P1: We observe natural bodies acting in an orderly & structured way (there is a regularity of succession in nature)
P2: This could not be because of chance (otherwise the world would be chaotic)
P3: Natural bodies cannot be responsible for achieving their own ends (they don’t possess intelligence so must be directed by something intelligent)
P4 (from P3 & P2): A transcendent, intelligent being must be responsible for the regularity of succession we observe in nature (if neither chance nor natural objects are responsible, a transcendent being of intelligence must be)
P: This being we call God
Paley’s teleological argument
If Paley had happened upon a watch on a heath, it could not have appeared on the heath by chance or been produced via natural processes.
This is obvious because of the watch’s order & complexity which serves a purpose (to tell the time). It must have been dropped on the heath by someone. It is different from, for example, a rock because the rock is not obviously complex, orderly nor purposeful
By analogy, looking at a watch is similar to looking at the world or at the human body (he uses the example of an eye) — it is orderly & complex yet all works together for a purpose (e.g. sight) — we can infer there must have been a divine intelligence ordering it
analogical argument (e.g. Paley’s teleological argument)
argument in which one concludes that two things are alike in a certain respect (A) because they are alike in other respects (B)
e.g. Paley shows both man-made artefacts & some natural objects require a designer (A) because they are alike with regard to displaying complexity, order & purpose (B)
Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument (5)
The Fallacy of Composition — The question ‘why does the universe exist?’ is illegitimate
We cannot know the cause based merely on the observation of an effect
We have never experienced universes coming into existence so must accept the universe as a brute fact — cannot possibly know why it exists
‘Ex nihilo, nihil fit’ (nothing shall come from nothing) is not a valid argument
Why must God be the necessary being?
The Fallacy of Composition (Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument)
A response to this argument?
Just because particular things in a whole have causes for their existence, that does not mean the whole itself requires a separate cause for its existence
It is one thing to state every human being has a mother, but not to say there is a mother for the whole human race
Hume’s example is of 20 particles of matter — you would not need any other explanation of the twenty particles when you have explained the cause of each individually
Words like ‘team’, ‘human race’ & ‘universe’ are not ‘things’ as such, just names we give to a collection of things — don’t require an explanation of their existence since they just ‘are’ the collection of their parts & we give them a ‘name’ for ease of use
Our best scientific evidence of the ‘Big Bang’ is that ‘something’ came from ‘nothing’ around 14 billion years ago. This ‘something’ has been expanding & is the observable universe we experience now
However, when this ‘something’ came into existence 14 billion years ago it was a single thing — it wasn’t composed of separate parts e.g. atoms
If this is the case, we cannot account for the appearance of this ‘something’ by explaining its parts, because when it came into existence it had no parts so was a single ‘something’ that does not require an explanation as to how it came into existence
Hume’s idea that we cannot know the cause merely based upon the observation of the effect (criticism of cosmological argument)
A response to this?
Even if we accept that the universe, understood as an effect, requires a cause of its existence, it is impossible to know what this cause is based on our observations of the universe
Rather than a single ‘God’, the cause of the universe could be a number of Gods. Even if there is a single God, we cannot know why it created a universe (maybe it was a botched attempt, maybe God created the universe for the purpose of tormenting humans) — we cannot assume God is ‘good’
Aquinas — we can ‘know’ certain things about the ‘cause’ of the universe
unmoved mover
uncaused cause
necessary being
It must have these characteristics to prevent an infinite regress, which would contradict what we observe (a universe that is constantly changing & something rather than nothing)
Hume is wrong to claim we cannot know anything about the ‘cause’ of the universe based on what we observe in it
Hume’s idea that we must accept the universe as a brute fact because we have never experienced universes coming into existence & cannot possibly know why it exists? (criticism of cosmological argument)
A response to this?
It is a mistake to think about the cosmological question of the universe’s origin in terms of cause & effect — takes us beyond the scope of human ideas & understanding
cannot get out of this universe to observe what created it, nor have we observed any other universe coming into existence
the existence of the universe must be treated as a basic brute fact that is incapable of further explanation (for us)
Hume argues the whole cosmological argument is illegitimate — asks us to have knowledge of something we could never observe
the cause of the universe could be any number of things
We can understand some characteristics of the ‘cause’ of the universe based upon our observations of certain characteristics of the universe (Aquinas)
Hume’s view that Ex nihilo, nihil fit’ (nothing shall come from nothing) is not a valid argument (criticism of cosmological argument)
Response to this?
In his ‘second way’, Aquinas argues every ‘thing’ that exists must have a cause of its existence
This idea is an assumption — we do not know ‘a priori’ (intuitively) not ‘a posteriori’ (demonstratively) that the argument ‘ex nihilo nihil fit’ is true (there is nothing within the concept of ‘existence’ to say existence must have a cause) (a priori)
Also, it might be the case that one day we will observe something come into existence without a cause (a posteriori)
Recent arguments in quantum physics may back up Hume’s idea — some effects seem to appear for no reason
for many people, Hume’s idea that there is no reason to reject the idea things can happen without a cause is taking things a step too far — otherwise the universe would be chaotic rather than ordered
because we observe an ordered universe, there must be a reason for each effect we observe
Hume’s idea that it may not be God which is the necessary being (criticism of cosmological argument)
The material universe could be the necessary being
We don’t know enough about the nature of reality to know what must exist necessarily
It might be the case that material universes have to exist & cannot not exist
Aquinas — the universe is composed of contingent things & if this is the case there would be a time at which no contingent thing existed
As we can observe contingent things now, there must be at least one necessary being who cannot not exist — God
As material things are contingent, no material thing/collection of things could have necessary existence — the necessary being must be immaterial & transcendent of physical existence
Therefore, the only thing which can provide a ‘sufficient reason’ for a material universe would have different characteristics from it
However, Aquinas may be wrong about the nature of contingency & necessity with regard to material universes
The ‘cause’ may not be a necessary being, it could be chance or some other reason we aren’t yet aware of
Dawkins criticisms of the cosmological argument
If we accept Aquinas’s argument that we need a transcendent being to prevent an infinite regress, the best we could understand this as is a deistic God without any of the characteristics Christians ascribe to it
‘God-of-the-gaps’ — assuming an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon (e.g. how life started; complexity, order & structure in universe)
Daniel Dennett uses the term ‘skyhook’ to mean the same thing
the fallacy of ‘special pleading’ (cosmological)
can this be overcome?
Constructing an argument that requires ‘all things’ to be of a particular type but that there is one thing (usually the conclusion to the argument) which is a special case to which the argument does not apply
Dawkins: Aquinas’s First Three Ways “make the entirely unwarranted assumption tat God himself is immune to the regress”
In order for Aquinas’s argument that all things require a mover/cause & all things are contingent, God has to be a ‘special case’ which does not require a mover to move it, a cause to cause it, nor is God contingent
Thinkers such as Dawkins would probably admit there cannot be an infinite regress since they believe universe had a beginning (Big Bang)
In order to prevent an infinite regress, there must exist an uncaused cause who is also an unmoved mover, which is also a necessary being (Aquinas — why not just call this God?)
However, it might still be a leap too far to propose that the Christian God is this cause
Hume’s criticisms of the teleological argument (5)
1-3: even if we admit that what we observe in the universe leads us to accept that a transcendent intelligence is the best explanation for the complex order we observe, this doesn’t allow us to legitimately say what this intelligence may/may not be like
4-5: Aquinas & Paley have discounted that matter itself or chance might actually be better explanations than intelligence
Like effects do not necessarily prove like causes
Aquinas & Paley’s use of analogy is weak
Even if we assume design, this doesn’t prove there was only one God/it has the attributes of the Christian God
The order in the universe could result from the intrinsic properties of matter itself
The reason might be chance rather than design
Like effects do not necessarily prove like causes (Hume’s criticisms of teleological argument)
A response to this?
Paley & Aquinas assume like effects have like causes (the order & complexity of watches means the cause of the watch must be the watch-maker, & we can infer the same thing about the universe since we observe similar effects in it
Example of pair of scales — one end is hidden in view & the end we can see contains a weight we know. We know that what is in the hidden pan weighs the same since the scales are balanced but do not know what is in the hidden pan.
When we look at the world, we only have the effect to look at — the cause is hidden from us so we don’t know what it is
Because the world is imperfect & contains so much natural suffering, we could well infer that its designer is incompetent & malicious
If we had not seen a watch being made, we would still assume it was made by an intelligence (watchmaker)
How does Hume criticise Aquinas & Paley’s (3) use of analogy? (criticism of teleological argument)
It can’t be assumed that it is obvious to everyone how the world is like a watch (regularly formed & fit for purpose)
Characteristics of purpose & design are not as obvious in the world
we could ask ‘What is the purpose of a cat?’ or ‘What is the purpose of nature as a whole’? & not have an obvious answer
Watches have to be made because they cannot produce themselves. Animals & plants can, however — it would be better to assume the world was not created by a designer but born from a previous world
It is not right to draw comparisons between the world & machines & use them as analogies since there is very little similarity
Arrows are passive & obviously cannot act by themselves
This analogy is poor because nature is active (things grow & develop, interact, respond to other aspects in nature) & nature is full of understandable natural processes including evolution
Aquinas implies nature is passive rather than active
Hume’s idea that the teleological argument does not prove there was only one God involved in world’s design/we can infer any of the attributes of this God
A response to this?
We have not observed universes being designed so it is illegitimate to make assumptions about what could have caused the design in the universe
The argument doesn’t point to any features associated with classical concept of God (omni-qualities, only one God, etc.) — even if you accept the design of the universe must come from something outside of it, it is illegitimate to leap to knowledge of what this ‘something’ might be
If we had not seen a watch being made, we would still assume it was made by an intelligence (watchmaker)
Hume’s idea that the order in nature could equally well result from the intrinsic properties of matter itself (criticism of teleological argument)
We don’t know enough about the structure of matter & products of natural processes to be sure matter could not produce order by necessity
Hume was proved correct by Darwin’s ‘Evolution by Natural Selection’
There is no transcendent intelligence needed to guarantee the order of succession (e.g. hydrogen & oxygen when combined as H2O always producing water) will always occur
Hume’s idea that order in nature could be the result of chance rather than design (criticism of teleological argument)
A response to this?
How might Hume still be correct?
Epicurean thesis
suppose we have infinite time & a huge but finite number of particles exist, freely moving around
given an infinite amount of time, these particles would undergo every possible combination
a few of these will be relatively stable (fit together quite well)
that could be where we are living now
Hume would be correct , but our best scientific evidence tells us the universe has only existed for 14.5 billion years
It is far more improbable that the universe has managed to arrange itself randomly into the ordered, structured universe we observe
Hume’s criticism only works if there an infinite amount of time & this doesn’t seem to be the case
There could have been many universes prior to this one & many more to follow — our universe could be part of a vast multiverse with an infinite number of universes, some chaotic & some orderly but very simple
No evidence for this but there is nothing inherently contradictory to these ideas so just as likely/unlikely as God being the explanation
John Stuart Mill’s criticism of the teleological argument
From the existence of a flawed universe, the most we can infer is a flawed creator
Natural evil provides evidence for this — death & suffering as result of illness, natural disasters, etc.
If these were the result of design, it would be a very faulty sort of design & the designer would be morally flawed
The designer must in some ways be malevolent (want there to be suffering)
Even more apparent when we look at evolution — some theologians have tried to reconcile evolution & teleological arguments by arguing God ‘uses’ evolution to achieve His aims
Evolution is built upon suffering — in the battle for survival, some animals necessarily have to suffer
If God were omnipotent, omniscient & omnibenevolent he would not be using a process which requires suffering to achieve His aims
How evolution by natural selection works
Begins with ‘chance’ (genetic modification) & nature ‘selects’ creatures best adapted to their environments
The process of natural selection drastically reduces the amount of time necessary to produce the complex, orderly organisms we observe
Over time, this selection process has produced all the order & complexity we observe in the biological natural world
Natural Selection doesn’t aim for this order & complexity (it is not intelligent), it happens without a purpose/telos
chance + a selection process = order & complexity
Evolution as the ‘Blind Watchmaker’ (Dawkins)
For the diverse, complex & orderly creatures we observe to exist, intelligence & purpose in the world are not necessary
The complexity & order (‘design’) of biological creatures can be explained without the need to posit an intelligent designer — no need to posit this intelligent designer to explain order & complexity in the world
Also means there is no purpose to the existence of life/the universe — just a brute fact
Lends weight to Hume’s criticisms of teleological argument: it could be ‘matter itself’ which produces the order & complex organisms
The ‘Blind Watchmaker’ because natural selection can ‘design’ the creatures around us whilst also being a blind process that does not aim at any particular design
challenges to teleological arguments from evolution (6)
as genes are passed on to next generation, mutations occur which change the characteristics of the species
places emphasis not on existence of extrinsic designer God but on what is going on intrinsically in nature
explains the features a species has not as being fixed by an intelligent designer but as flexible since species adapt to the environment
species with characteristics that ‘fit’ with their environment the best will do well in the competition for survival & will therefore be able to reproduce more so their characteristics will be passed on to the next generation
it is nature that is responsible for the change in the characteristics of species. This change depends on an often brutal competition for survival, which entails that many will suffer (usually as food for another animal).
excludes idea of a benevolent designer using natural selection to achieve their ends
the fittest species will be those most suitable for the environment
as the environment changes, the species will adapt to it via inheritance & reproduction
removes guiding nature of a benevolent God who is intricately involved with His creation
Paley’s fascination with birds’ wings can be explained by the benefit animals received by being able to use wings to glide away from predators
Natural Selection allows species to go extinct e.g. dinosaurs, Dodo
difficult to understand how the God of the teleological argument allows such waste of species/would bother with designing species that were not going to survive
sometimes things such as eyes/lungs don’t work as they should
nature isn’t perfect — during the period of a foetus’s development or during our lifetime things naturally ‘go wrong’
this is how an unintelligent, uncaring natural process works
difficult to understand how omnipotent, omnibenevolent God could design things so badly his design very often ‘goes wrong’ rather than admit God is somehow deficient in his power
why not admit that there is no God?
chance & randomness, along with unconscious selection process of nature, is all that is required to produce complex & orderly natural world we observe
design argument — the guiding hand & intelligence of God are what is needed
evolution has shown that a mixture of ‘change’ & nature (matter itself) could produce the order & complexity we observe
The ‘fine-tuned’ universe (F.R. Tennant)
Consider this in relation to Aquinas’s fifth way
Tennant’s version of teleological argument: Anthropic Principle
The universe is designed for the development of intelligent (human) life
If there was no ‘intelligence’ (God) to ensure the universe was ‘fine-tuned’ the universe would likely be chaotic or very short-lived
The universe has been designed in such a way that life in general could appear & that life, through the process of evolution, could then become intelligent
Human life is the purpose of the existence of the universe
For human life to come into existence, certain very specific & unconnected physical conditions need to be in place (fine-tuning argument)
All these physical features are to be found in place in this universe (a posteriori)
Either these features have occurred by chance or by Intelligent Design
The probability of all these features occurring by chance is incredibly small
Therefore, the most likely explanation for these life-enabling features is Intelligent Design
C: Therefore God exists
Humans are led to an understanding that God must exist because their own existence is so unlikely — the purpose of all this complexity & order is to allow humans to come to an understanding of the existence of God
Who came up with the concept of the ‘fine-tuned’ universe?
F. R. Tennant
Tennant’s ‘fine tuning’ argument as a counterargument to Hume’s ‘Epicurean Thesis’ (if asked whether teleological arguments can be defended against the challenge of ‘chance’)
‘Epicurean Thesis’
given an infinite amount of time (or infinite no. of universes), any finite arrangement of matter will necessarily produce the order & complexity we observe in the universe
There will, of course, be lots of times (or universes) where the matter is in a state of chaos but, given infinity, the universe we observe could not not exist — would be necessary
Hume’s criticism only works given an infinite amount of time (or infinite amount of universes) & our best evidence is that there is only one universe which has existed for a long time but not infinity
Hume’s ‘Epicurean Thesis’ does not explain what we observe
Evolution as a counterargument to Tennant’s ‘Fine Tuning’ argument (if asked whether teleological arguments can be defended against the challenge of ‘chance’)
‘Chance’ can explain the complexity, order & structure with apparent purpose that we observe in the biological world
This is because it is not ‘chance’ alone that has produced the order, but chance along with the natural process of natural selection
‘Chance’ forms part of an alternative explanation to ‘intelligence’ being the best explanation for the structured complexity we observe
The ‘fine-tuning’ argument refers to the order & structure in universe outside of biological world but cannot be applied to order & structure in the world as a whole
There is still the problem of why the universe as a whole is structured & ordered in such a precise way to allow intelligent life to develop
objections to the ‘fine-tuning’ argument (3)
According to the ‘fine-tuning’ argument, humans are the purpose & culmination of the evolutionary process. However, if God somehow designed evolution, he would be responsible for every species that has ever existed, including dinosaurs
Why would God have created the evolutionary process in such a way that the vast majority of species are now extinct?
Since evolution requires the suffering of animals & humans (e.g. natural selection; resistance to diseases), how could God be omnipotent & omnibenevolent?
Gaps in scientific knowledge are taken as evidence/proof of God’s existence
It is difficult to conceive of an explanation as to why the universe seems ‘fine-tuned’ for human intelligence, but absence of an answer doesn’t mean we can simply ‘plug in’ God to fill the gap in our knowledge
No reason not to believe we will come to a scientific understanding of why the world must exist in the way it does some day
Almost all of Hume’s criticisms against teleological arguments can be applied
Even if we assume a finely-tuned universe, it is too much of a jump in reason to leap to a statement about what the cause of this fine-tuning is
logical fallacy
a flaw or mistake in reasoning
a flaw or mistake in reasoning
logical fallacy
The ‘either-or’ Fallacy (cosmological & teleological)
can this be overcome?
Committed when someone constructing an argument consciously or unconsciously limits the possible answers to the argument
Can be argued that both Paley & Aquinas (in his cosmological ‘First Three Ways’) & his Teleological (‘Fifth Way’) both commit this fallacy
Both appear to limit the possibilities of the creation & design of the universe to:
result of an intelligent designer (creator & designer)
it all happened by chance
universe was self-creating & self-organising
Supporters of teleological & cosmological arguments argue that (1) is best answer because (2) & (3) are so unlikely
However, Evolution by Natural Selection proposes that (2) & (3) together produce a complex & orderly natural world
Only works for the ‘design like’ features we observe in living world. With regard to the fine-tuning of universe & creation of universe, we are left with original 3 options
However, Evolution reminds us that reality is often stranger & more complicated than we imagine — we might find the ‘either-or’ fallacy can also be applied to the creation of & design of non-living universe
Note 
Flashcard (108)