Religious Studies: Arguments Based On Observation

TELEOLOGICAL

What is Aquinas’ 5th way?

* Aquinas believed that all things have a purpose/ a final end/ a telos 
* But we cannot achieve without purpose with something making it happen - a guide - which is God
* Aquinas states that even though things lack knowledge  (eg natural bodies) they still act for a final purpose (this is the observation from which he will reason)
* Acting for an end always leads to the best result
* This MUST happen by design (intention) and not luck
* Anything that lacks knowledge needs something with knowledge to guide it


* Therefore there is an intelligent being (God) that directs all natural things to their end 
* For Aquinas the world is governed by God, who is the guiding force that makes things achieve their purpose deliberately 

What is the analogy Aquinas uses to demonstrate this

**The analogy of the arrow and the archer- AN ARROW NEEDS AN ARCHER TO GET TO ITS TARGET**

What else does Aquinas call his argument?

The governance from the world

What is a direct counter to Aquinas’ 5th and how does it discredit his argument?

Existentialism- perpetuated by Sartre

* The philosophical belief that we are responsible for creating our ow purpose or meaning in our life
* if we create our own purpose then we do not need a being- God- to help since we have chosen this path and so have the knowledge to achieve it

PALEYS TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Why does Paley think that regularity shows signs of a creator? What example does P use?

He observed complex objects and noticed they work with regularity eg the seasons and so this cannot be by chance must be created

Why does Paley think that things having purpose shows signs of a creator?

If something is so well designed that its purpose can be observed then must have been created for that purpose and so did not appear by chance but by intention

eg the construction of the eye with the purpose to see

What is the analogy of the watch?

* In a heath come across a rock- natural cause 
* See a watch- no natural explanation 
* Watch made of cogs and springs so it was not created by chance but it was designed by a watchmaker who designed to tell the time 

The world has gravity, seasons and rotating planets 

* The world is more complex in terms of composition than a watch so there must be a creator, God

HUMES CRITICISMS OF THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

What does Hume say about Paleys watch analogy?

* It is not necessarily true that the world is like a watch


* It might be true to say that the watch looks as though it has been designed but its harder to say that the world has these characteristics: so Hume rejects the idea that the analogy is suitable

What does Hume suggest it would be more suitable to compare the world too? and why?

a vegetable as they have the characteristics of intricacy the world does this is because veggies are complex natural objects, rather than a machine like the watch

What does Hume says that displays his idea that this is more suitable’

‘Have you ever seen nature in a situation that resembles the first arrangement of elements at the beginning of the universe?’ Hume

However, how could one still argue that the comparison to a veggie points to existence of God?

Vegetables only grow because the laws of biology work- who created these laws?

Why else could one dismiss Paleys watch analogy?

We cannot claim analogy between artefacts and natural objects- artefacts are mechanical but universe is organic

How could one defend Paleys argument from this criticism?

* Paley's argument is arguably not an analogy between artefacts and natural objects.
* He is merely arguing that there is a property that requires a designer- property of complexity and purpose- parts fit together in a complex way to perform a purpose- cant just be from chance
* the watch is merely an illusion used to depict his point

Why does the evidential problem of evil challenge the teleological arguments?

Because…

* a posteriori  observation of the world cannot provide a basis to conclude that a perfect God exists that because the world contains imperfections like evil
* the God that A and P describe is that of classical theism but the evidential problem of evil dismisses this

What does Hume state the world could be?

‘The work of an infant deity’ - Hume

How does Paley counter the evidential problem of evil point?

Even though the watch may be broken there is still enough design for one to know that a watchmaker made the watch

The world may contain evil but there is still enough design for one to that it must have been created and not a product of chance

What theodicies could be used to further counter the evidential problem of evil?

* Augustines theodicy
* Hicks Irenaean theodicy

What is the epicurean thesis?

The idea that given an infinite amount of time, all the particles in the universe would be able to combine into every possible combo

How does the epicurean thesis dismiss the teleological argument?

Well with infinite time and finite particles they are bound to combine into every combination and so the world was created by chance and not created by God

However this argument could the epicurean thesis be criticised?

The view of modern scientists today is that the world began at the big bang and so therefore there is not infinite time

even though they might not directly agree with A&P this shows that the Hume may be wrong to use the epicurean thesis to dismiss the teleological arguments

Despite the view of epicurean thesis how could one argue that the world still may be created by chance?

Multiverse theory- the idea that there are multiple universes that occurred by chance rather than occurring because of an infinite time frame

Eventually a stable environment would be created and that could be the world we live in

What do both the epicurean thesis and multiverse theory suggest?

So randomness explains the universe, not a designer- Hume is saying that God is not the only possible reason for the earths existence

What does Swinbourne think about multiverse theory?

* There is little evidence of it
* Polkinghorne argues that it is a ‘metaphysical guess’ or ‘bold speculation’

HIS POINTS OF THE NATURE OF GOD

How does Hume critcise the nature of God (of classical theism) that the teleological argument perpetuate?

* He objects to the idea that by looking at the effects in the world we can make an inference about the cause (God)


* Our world is finite and imperfect, why should God be infinite and perfect, why can't God be finite and perfect too?

What example does Hume use to demonstrate this? How does this relate to the existence of God?

* He uses the example of a pair of scales where one is hidden: just because we know that one side of the scale is heavier than the other does not mean we know its exact weight
* Just because we see evidence of a designer, does not mean we know the nature of it

What two points could be said as a comeback to Humes criticisms of the nature of God?

* We need faith to make the final leap to understanding God
* The creation of the world/universe is a unique event: why shouldn't there be a special case such as God to explain it

Hume argues that the world could be the attempt of a what what who did what?

An infant deity who abandoned the world?

What is Hume’s example of the shipbuilder?

* Humes uses the example of a shipbuilder, but when we meet him he turns out to be a stupid mechanic who has imitated others and copied an art-form that has been failed through many attempts


* Could be more than one designer- just like there is more than one designer of a house or a ship
* The designer could be immoral- just because the watch is perfect does not mean the watchmaker is too

How could this argument be challenged?

God does not have to share all the same characteristics as a human designer, for example God does not have a body 

THE CHALLENGE OF EVOLUTION

What came first Paleys argument or evolution?

Paley- so be fair

Who discovered this theory and where is it contained?

* Darwin
* The Origin Of Species

How does evolution challenge the teleological argument?

Challenges the teleological argument as it presents us with an alternative explanation as to how the would could exist as it does

How does the inheritance and reproduction aspect of evolution challenge the teleological argument?

* It says that Species reproduce and pass their genes onto the next generation and so places the emphasis not on the designer God, but what is going on in the world

\

How does the mutation aspect of evolution challenge the teleological argument?

* it says that as genes are passed on mutations occur in subsequent generations. These mutations change the characteristics of the species
* therefore changes in different species does not happen because a designer (God) but because of naturally occurring mutations (chance)

How does the survival of the fittest aspect of evolution challenge the teleological argument?

* it says when new characteristics emerge out of mutations there will be 2 types of one species at one time. Those that are fittest to survive will do so and reproduce and so it will be their characteristics that get passed onto the next generation
* The T argument suggests that it is the designer that affects change. However survival of the fittest says that nature competing against nature for survival is what makes the change

so brutal nature is responsible for the world we see around us not a designer

How does the adaptation aspect of evolution challenge the teleological argument?

* it says the fittest species will be those that are most suitable for the environment. As the environment changes the species adapt to fit it. Eg a birds beak might change due to mutation but a new beak shape could turn out to be the most suitable for the available food so becomes the dominant shape, thus the species adapts 
* This removes the guiding nature of a God who is intricately involved with his creation. Paley's point on bird wings might be explained by the need for an early form of bird to be able to fly in order to escape predators

How does the extinction aspect of evolution challenge the teleological argument?

* Nature allows for things to go extinct- eg dinosaurs 
* It is hard to understand why the God of the T. argument would allow species to go to waste or design fallible ones that go extinct

How does the development over time aspect of evolution challenge the teleological argument?

* Evolution takes place over an incredible long period of time- six million years


* The designer seems to design a species ‘all at once’ - genesis

How does the chance and randomness aspect of evolution challenge the teleological argument?

* Everything happens by chance. Mutation is random


* The designer argument rejects any sense of chance: the guiding hand of God is the controlling force 

What does Richard Dawkins say that shows he supports the idea that evolution explains the existence of creation?

**‘In the case of living machinery, the ‘designer’ is unconscious natural selection, the blind watchmaker’** *The Blind watchmaker*

MODERN SUPPORTERS OF THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Whose idea is the anthropic principle and what is it?

* Tennant
* the idea that too much has gone right in the world in leading to the existence of humankind and so it could not have happened by chance- we have oxygen and shit

What point counters the anthropic principle argument?

Although the conditions are very precise given the size of the universe and how many planets there are - we expect many planets like earth - 100 billion planets in our galaxy alone

What is the aesthetic principle?

the idea that the ability to recognise beauty is not something that would come about via evaluation (there is no evolutionary advantage) and so may suggest divine creator

How does Darwkin use the aesthetic principle to support the theory of evolution?

Says that the perception of beauty makes animals attractive to their mate which results in more offspring- good for survival

How could this be criticised?

There is more to beauty than sexual attarctive- music, literature and art

How could this be criticsed?

The evolution of the perception of beauty could be a by- product of evolution of intelligence 

\

What is Ockhams razor and how can it be used to support the teleological argument?

When there is more than one possible explanation a designer God is the easiest solution to how things have come about 

COSMOLOGICAL

What is a cosmological argument?

An argument that starts with observation about the way the universe work and then from these try to explain why it exists 

What is Leibniz quote?

 ‘Why is there something, rather than nothing?’

What are Aquinas’ first three ways?

* unmoved mover
* uncaused causer
* contingency and necessity

Who inspired Aquinas’ first way and what did they conclude?

* Inspired by Aristotle
* concluded- that way things move or change must mean that something has made that motion take place 

What is A. first way?

* unmoved mover

it is the idea that:

* Everything is in a state of actuality (what it is) and potentiality (what is might become) 


* All things that are moved are moved by something else (the potentiality becomes the actuality)
* The move is in turn moved by something else, which is moved by some else, which is also moved by something else etc 
* There cannot be an infinite regress as then there would be no first mover and nothing would have started at all
* So there must be a first mover: this unmoved mover is what everyone understands to be God

Who is A. second way inspired by?

Aristotle and his efficient cause

What is A. second way?

* The uncaused causer

it states

* Nothing can be its own efficient cause because it cannot have existed before itself 
* Causes must themselves be caused, otherwise the effect would be taken away 
* We cannot back to infinity because that would mean there is no first cause of everything and so later all effects and causes would not have happened 
* Therefore there must be a special case, an efficient cause that is not itself caused
* This is the uncaused causer that everyone understands to be God 

What does A say about everything in the universe?

Everything in the universe is contingent- it relies on something else to bring it into existence and other things to let it continue to exist

What is the third way?

The idea that:

* In nature some things are contingent- possible ‘to be’ and ‘not to be’ 


* These things did not always have to exist because they must not existed at some point as they rely on something else for their existence 
* If we go back, we arrive at a point where nothing existed but then nothing would have begun to exist as nothing can come from nothing 
* Therefore they must be a type of being that is necessary 
* Maybe necessary beings have their necessity come from another being
* You cannot go back indefinitely 
* Therefore there must be a being that has of itself it own necessity (its necessity is explained by itself) which causes other beings 
* This is God

Which of A. three ways does Russells brute fact counter?

* contingency and necessity

What is his argument?

that:

* There is an assumption made by arguments from contingency 


* A series could have no reason/ cause/ explanation 
* He points to quantum physics as evidence
* The physicists assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have no cause

How does Copleston respond to this?

he responds that:

* Copleston responds that only some interpretations of quantum physics propose uncaused events and science and philosophy is about looking for causes and explanations 

However how does R respond and why is this stronger?

* Scientists may look for causes but they do not state that there is one to find in the first place
* Even if some are caused and some aren't this still shows that it is logically possible for objects in nature to have no cause

Stronger as the possibility that there could be no cause overpowers the idea that there could be a cause

HUMES CRITICISMS OF THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

What does modern cosmology suggest?

Modern cosmology suggest the universe was created 13.7 million years ago by the big bang

What was all of the universe contained in?

a tiny hot and dense bubble

What happened 300,000 years after the big bang?

the universe had cooled enough for the atoms to cool and collide to form the universe 

Why are many religious believers happy to accept the big bang alongside their own belief ?

For them the big bang still does not fully explain how matter came to exist, nor why the expansion started

Why do the recent discoveries of the higgs-boson particle support this?

Although the particle is self causing there is no explanation as to why the particle is here in the first place

LOGICAL FALLACIES