teleological/design arguments

what are the three design arguments

• analogy - hume

• paley’s design argument from spatial order/purpose

• swinburne’s design argument from temporal order/regularity

what are the four issues for the design arguments

• hume’s objections to the design argument from analogy

• problem of spacial disorder

• fails as it is an argument from a unique case

• whether god is the best/only explanation

what do teleological arguments do

infer from the order and regularity of the universe that god designed the universe

inductive and a posteriori

overall for them to be successful the answer to the two questions raised by them (‘is the order that we see evidence of a designer?’, ‘is that designer god if so?’) must be ‘yes’

Hume’s argument from analogy

mention: ‘like effects have like causes’ ‘fitting means to ends’ (vs Paley where you ralk about ‘spacial order’ ‘inference’ ‘purpose’

analogy: like effects have like causes.

Hume says that ‘in the fitting of means to ends’, nature (eg. eye) resembles the product of human design (eg. watch). by ‘fitting means to ends’ he is talking abt the coordination of parts to achieve some purpose.

similar effects have similar causes

the cause of the products of human design is an intelligent mind that intended the design

therefore the cause of nature is an intelligent mind that intended the design

part 2 FROM design, not FOR design: because of the ‘grandeur’ of the natural world (vast, intricate) that is so far from what a human designer is conceived, this designer of nature is ‘possessed of much larger faculties’ than man. most plausible therefore to suppose that god is the designer of the natural world and he therefore exists

 He draws on the idea that ‘like effects have like causes’.  Just as human artefacts such as watches are means to some end and would not have existed had humans not created them, so the universe is a means to some end that would not have existed if  no intelligent designer had created it.  This resemblance between the watch and nature as a whole suggests that there must be a designer of the universe and that it must be much greater than a human.  The most likely candidate is God.

Hume’s objections to the design arg from analogy

• arguments from analogy are only as strong as the similarities between the things compared so here hume attacks the similarities between human artefacts and naturally occurring objects

• human artefacts we know are designed only because we have experienced them being designed, but we have no experience of natural things being desinged - we only regard objects as designed because we have experience of them being designed. but we have no experience of natural objects being designed so we are not justified in inferring they were designed. we do have expereience of natural objects forming through natural processes so it is more rational to believe that objects are formed by natural processes than design

• (paley response eg. caveman and watch - we have no experience of them being designed but we do recognise they were designed)

• hume response: yes but only because we can compare the object with ojbects that we know to have been designed eg. phones, watches, clock. but universe is unique and there is nothing else like it therefore it cannot be compared to anything

• moreover, natural objects may have some resemblance to human artifacts but there are loads of features they don’t possess eg. growing - proponents of design argument only focus on some features of natural objects and are being unfairly selective to support their case

• also many human artefacts have a purpose but many biological things don’t

Paley’s argument from spatial order/purpose

watch, rock - you know the watch but not the rock has an intelligent designer whereas the rock always existed

because: the watch, unlike the stone 1. displays spatial order as it is complex and harmonious (diff parts made of different materials each of which is suited to the role that they play eg. glass for face so clear and can see whereas metal cogs so durable, regulated to hours of the day,) 2. has a purpose (tells the time)

natural objects display the same design-like features as the watch eg. eye is spatially ordered and has a purpose…

the eye therefore most probably also had an intelligent designer

eye part of a larger natural object, body, body part of natural world, natural world part of physical universe - vast machine which has innumerable many parts and most probably had an intelligent designer

since the universe is infinite and composed of incalculably many parts, al of which are spatially ordered, the designer must be far superior and intelligent than the desinger of the wstch

the best candidate is god

therefore it is more likely than not that god exists

diff between spatial order and temporal order

spatial: ‘regularities of co-presence’, paley, about the intricate and seemingly designed arrangement of things in the universe to produce a result

temporal: ‘regularities of succession’, swinburne, order of one thing over another eg. if you let go of something it falls to earth due to the laws of gravity

problem of spatial disorder

defends two conclusions: the natural world is not designed, if it is the designer is not God

• nature provides vast examples of spacial disorder eg. large parts of the universe are empty/uninhabitable; our planet behaves in chaotic ways eg earthquakes; human and animal lives are often made miserable and difficult by pain - what is the purpose of this pain?

• Paley responds by saying a watch, which is designed, does not have to be perfect in order to show it is designed. even if the watch in his design argument malfunctioned in some way, the inference from spacial order that it was designed would still stand

• but: look back to Paley’s thing about the stone - the stone is not inferred to be designed because it is an example of spacial disorder. surely then, we can infer from all the spatial disorder in the universe that many features of the natural world may not be designed

• designers can die whilst their creations continue

• + that it was not designed by god because it is omnipotent!

why the designer isn’t god

• + more for conc 2 is that complex machines desinged by a team

• , god is infinite but universe is finite so why does there need to be an infinite being as it is more likely finite

• , god is supposed to be creator but design argument only suffice in showing he is the designer(creator and designer of machines are diff - explain)

• , spatial disorder suggests not an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god,

• machines designed by trial and error so more likely that universe created by long process of trial and error

how far does paley escape hume’s objections

• yes: he doesn’t offer an argument from anaolgy (does not argue that natural thinks are like watches so their causes are similar - he instead argues that watches have a property fo spatial order which supports the inference of a designer, everything that has this property has this cause)

• no: if we have never seen a watch, can we reasonably infer it was designed? hume and paley disagree

appearance of design does not imply there is any design

• spider and web - not an intelligent designer BUT theist suggest that it does show intelligent design and god is the intelligent designer

• most plausible alternative to how things seem to be desinged when they aren’t…

• evolution by natural selection #biogcse

• why more compelling: wealth of empirical evidence to support it and very little evidence for design; simpler (occam’s razor); fits in better with what we ordinarily know about how the world works; better explains spatial disorder

two benefits of swinburne appealing to temporal rather than spacial order

1. such laws are universal - there aren’t parts of the universe that experience temporal disorder in the way that there is spacial disorder

2. there is no explanation of why there is temporal order in the same way that we have now accounted for spatial order (evolution works by laws of nature such as temporal order but it does not explain them in the way it explains spatial order)

swinburne’s argument from design

• focused on temporal regularity

• no scientific explanation for the operation of the laws of nature

• science explains why the water boils and we can explain this even to a subatomic level but every explanation will presuppose other laws an properties

• laws can be explained in terms of general laws but that is all - science must assume these fundamental laws in order to provide any explanations at all - all scientific explanations presuppose laws eg. gravity - therefore scientific laws have no personal explanation

• but we use another type of explanation all the time: ‘personal explanation’ - eg. i’m writing these words in this order because i intend to write it. we know the regularities in success that are caused by the activities of a person

• swinburne argues that we can explain the temporal order and so the fundamental laws of the universe in this way - personal explanation

• In Swinburne’s view, the laws of nature were designed by God with us in mind.

• so go over why cannot be scientific (ie all scientific in terms of other scientific), cannot be random because of the infinite number of ways that our universe could be that would cause it not to be favourable to our existence, so it must be a personal intelligent designer

• why is it god: theistic explananation: The fundamental regularities of the universe are the way they are in order to bring about moral agents – that’s us – whom God may justly judge, and either punish or reward.

1. Make a general comment about Swinburne focussing on temporal order (regularity over time) not spatial order

2. Temporal order split up into fundamental and phenomenal regularities (look at notes for this) - phenomenal= experiential, the regularity that we ordinarily experience in our every day lives eg. Sun rising daily;

3. fundamental = scientific Laws - regularity made manifest through natural laws eg. e=mc2

4. Rely on these things to survive, thrive, extend our knowledge

5. No other way of explaining this regularity in the world other than a divine creator

design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case

If you experience two events as conjoined, this does not give us grounds for believing one event caused the other. It is only when two events are constantly conjoined that we can infer one from the other. However, the universe is a unique case and so it is not possible to infer anything about the causes of universes.

P1: Design arguments make the inference that this universe and its properties were caused by a designer.

P2: We can make an inference that ‘X caused Y’ only if we have repeatedly observed event X conjoined to event Y.

P3: We have observed only one universe – this universe – and its properties are a unique case.

P4: We have never observed the origins of any universe.

C1: We cannot make any inference about the cause (and origins) of this universe and its properties.

C2: Design arguments are based on invalid inference.

phenomenal/fundamental regularity

• phenomenal: regularity in terms of ordinary experience

• Fundamental: consistent scientific experience

• swinburne, in his argument from temporal regularity, argues that however we see the world, it has regularity

what 2 things would u need in a 5 mark Q asking u to explain hume’s objections to paley

• we can’t infer design if we have no experience of it being designed - ie. do we see artefacts as design

• heart and eyes grow