3. Arguments based on observation

Philosophy, teleological, cosmological, Aquinas, Paley, Hume, evolution, logical fallacies

A posteriori arguments

to explore the existence of God

Perhaps the most famous way to explore the existence of God is to look around ourselves and decide whether what we observe points to God in some way.

This approach is known as a posteriori.

There are two famous approaches to a posteriori reasoning about Gods existence

- the first from the purpose and design of the world (the teleological argument)
- the second from the explanation or the origin of the universe (the cosmological argument).

Aristotle's works inspired

Aquinas, who is a proponent of both the teleological and cosmological arguments.

It's important to note that these two arguments aren't the

'only arguments, nor the 'only' versions of these arguments, and Aquinas wasn't the first person to suggest them.

Summary of teleological argument:

From observing the universe and nature, it is clear that everything has been designed with a purpose in mind, this pose suggests that here is an external intelligence that has created it with a purpose in mind, directing to towards that purpose. The intelligence behind the purpose in the world is God.

Summary of cosmological argument:

Understanding the details of the teleological argument in reference to Aquinas' Fifth way

* The teleological argument looks at the purpose of something and from that he reasons that God must exist.
* Aquinas gave five 'ways' of proving God exists and this, his teleological argument, is the fifth of these ways.
* Taken together they provide five insights into how observation might well point to the existence of God.

The focus for Aquinas is on how we achieve our purpose

it must be due to God.

Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle, believed that all things

have a purpose but we cannot achieve that purpose without something to make it happen - some sort of a guide, which is God.

Aquinas says that things that lack knowledge (e.g. natural bodies) act for...

a purpose/end (this is his observation from which he will now reason).

* This acting for an end always leads to the best result.
* This must happen, not by luck but by design. -Anything that lacks knowledge needs something with knowledge to guide it - just like an arrow needs an archer to get to its target.
* Therefore, there is an intelligent being that directs all natural things to their end.
* This being is what we call God.

So for Aquinas, the world is governed by God, who is the guiding force that makes things achieve their purpose deliberately.

Natural bodies are all things of less intelligence than God.

Aquinas uses a number of analogies to help him make his point (e.g. that of the archer and his arrow), but it is important to think about

whether it is valid to use an analogy when trying to prove (or disprove) the complicated philosophy about the existence of God.

Aquinas' point is that in the same way the archer guides the arrow to where it is meant to go, God guides natural bodies to where they are meant to go.

The natural body needs to get to its purpose, just like the arrow needs to get to its archer; the arrow needs an archer and the natural body needs something to direct it - and this is God.

Some argue that arguments from analogy are weak,

at best they can only suggest something probably shares a characteristic.

Others say analogies are

useful ways to illustrate a complex argument but are on their own not sufficient.

Is it valid to compare the relationship between

humans and God to the relationship between an arrow and an archer?

Understanding the details of the teleological argument in reference to Paley

* Paley was influenced by the scientific discoveries of his day, such as the realisation that gravity is a controlling force and the planets rotate around the sun.
* Isaac Newton had shown that a few key rules seem to govern the universe successfully - a bit like a machine.

Paley observed that complex objects work with regularity.

* The seasons of the year happen with order, the planets rotate with order, gravity works with order.
* This order seems to be the result of the work of a designer who has put this regularity and order into place deliberately.

In addition, the way things work seems to have been put together deliberately, with a purpose.

The eye seemed to Paley to have been constructed deliberately with the purpose to see.

The wings of a bird operate with such intricacy and with the purpose to aid flight

that there seems to be a purpose behind them.
For Paley, all this pointed to a designer, who is God.

Paley used the science of his day to show than on both small and large scales, there is evidence for design;

God's creative action is continuous and God will look after humans on a small and large scale.

In 'Natural Theology', Paley gives the analogy

of the watch.

He asks his readers to imagine walking in a heath.
Paley compares a watch and the Earth/universe.

Paley argues that if we were to come across an object, such as a watch on a heath, we would not assume that it had got there by chance since we would notice how complex it is and that its individual parts work together within the mechanisms of the watch.

Paley likens this to the complexity of the world and argues that

the world is even more complex than a watch in how it is put together, therefore we can infer that there must be a creator or an 'intelligent designer', God.

Paley also said:
Whether or not we had seen a watch before,

* it is clearly different to the rock in nature and origin.
* Even if the watch is broken, there is enough design to suggest a watchmaker, he isn't commenting on the quality of the design.
* Even if we didn't fully understand the watch, we would still identify design.

Paley's argument also uses the understanding of his day about machines to conclude that, by analogy,

the world must be a machine with a designer and creator.

Paley uses

regularity, order, intricacy, purpose and design to make his points.

The design of the universe cannot be by chance due to

its extremely complex nature - cannot have come about by accident

* it must of been designed. It's the natural world that's complex not just the things humans make, I.e. the eye is extremely complex.

Understanding the details of the cosmological argument on reference to Aquinas' first 3 ways

* The cosmological argument aims to prove God's existence based on God's ability to create the universe.
* Cosmological arguments start with observations about the way the universe works and from these try to explain why the universe exists: 'Why is there something, rather than nothing?'
* Leibniz in the seventeenth century said that there must be a sufficient explanation for the existence of the universe - everything must happen for a reason
* Aquinas gives three versions of the cosmological arguments, starting with three different (although similar) observations: motion, causation and contingency.

The first way: the unmoved mover

* Inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas notices that the ways in which things move or change must mean that something has made that motion take place. -Everything is both in a state of actuality (how it is) and potentiality (what it might become).
* All things that are moved (the potentially becomes the new actuality) are moved by something else - things can't move by themselves.
* The mover is itself moved by something else, which is in turn moved by something else and then something else again.
* This can't go on to infinity because otherwise there would be no first mover and so nothing would have started moving at all.
* So there must be a first mover.
* The first unmoved mover is what everyone understands to be God.

In summary (the first way):

In a chain of reasoning, each point in the chain relies on the existence of something that comes before it and so on, with no starting point. Aquinas argued against this as he said it was like knocking over a line of domino's and saying nothing pushed the first one, which is absurd. There must be a beginning, e.g. there must be a first unmoved mover, which is what everyone understands to be God.

The second way: the uncaused causer

* Using Aristotle's idea of an 'efficient cause'. -Nothing can be its own efficient cause because it can't have existed before itself.
* Things that are causes must themselves be caused, otherwise the effect would be taken away.
* There can't be an infinite regress of causes, therefore, there must be a special case, a first efficient cause that isn't itself caused.
* The first uncaused causer is what everyone understands to be God.

The third way: contingency and necessity

* Aquinas' point here is that everything in the universe it contingent - it relies in something to have brought it into existence and also things to let it continue to exist.
* Contingent being = something that relies in something else for its existence; it is possible that it does or doesn't exist.
* In nature there are contingent beings, these things couldn't of always existed because they must have not existed at some point because they rely on something else for their existence.
* If we trace this back, then we get to a point where nothing existed, but then nothing would have begun to exist as nothing can come from nothing.
* Therefore, there must be a type of being that isn't contingent - a necessary being.
* We can't go back infinitely, therefore, there must be a being that has of itself its own necessity (it's existence can only be explained only by itself) which causes other beings.
* This is what people call God.

In summary (the third way):

We cannot all be contingent beings as again it would lead to an infinite regress and no one would of existed, therefore there must be a necessary being that has always existed to prevent the regress.

Hume's writings criticise

both the teleological and cosmological arguments.

Underpinning both is the idea that

we can't meaningfully speak of the design of the world or the creation of the universe because we don't have sufficient experience of either to draw conclusions - the situation and discussion are too unique.

Hume also felt that arguments such as these (based on observation) can only provide probable, rather than certain, conclusions.

This is because these arguments rely on the evidence that we have now, and we cannot be certain that this evidence will not change in the future.

* For example, we might discover something in the future that does not have a cause, which would challenge the premise of the argument that everything has a cause.
* Therefore, Hume argued that we cannot be certain that the conclusion of these arguments (that God exists) is true, but only that it is probable based on the evidence we have now.

Humes criticisms of the teleological argument actually predate Paley

Paley probable knew of them but rejected them.

Criticisms of the teleological argument:

* First, Hume challenged analogies as a way of argument.
* Its not necessarily true that the world is like a watch.
* It might be true that a watch looks as if it is designed, but it is harder to say that the world has these characteristics. Hume therefore is rejecting the idea that the analogy is suitable.
* In fact he argued that the world could be said to be more like a vegetable that has characteristics of intricacy (a complex natural object), rather than a machine like a watch.
* Hume believed that the universe, like a vegetable, could have developed naturally through a process of growth and evolution, rather than being designed by a creator.
* Therefore, he argued that the analogy of a watch, which is a man-made object that requires a designer, is not an appropriate analogy for the universe.

Hume used the 'Epicurean hypothesis', which said that

, given an infinite amount of time, all the particles in the universe would be able to combine in every possible combination.

* Eventually, a stable environment would be created and that could be the world in which we live.
* Thus, randomness explains the universe, not a designer.
* The teleological argument doesn't prove, according to Hume, that the only way in which the world could be as it is comes from God.

Finally, Hume makes some points about the nature of the God who is supposedly proven.

* Hume objects to the idea that by looking at the effects in the world we can make inferences about the cause - i.e. God. This is the methodology used by Aquinas in his Five Ways.
* Our world is finite and imperfect; why should God be infinite and perfect - why couldn't God be finite and/or imperfect, too?
* Hume uses the example of a pair of scales where one side is hidden: just because we know one side of the scales is heavier than the other, we don't know the exact weight of the other side.
* In the same way, just because we might see evidence of a designer, we don't know anything about the nature of the designer.
* The designer could have created this world through a series of trial and error experiments (just like a watchmaker would, in fact).
* The world could even be the first attempt of an 'infant deity' who then abandoned the world.

Hume uses the example of a shipbuilder

who makes a wonderful ship, but when we meet him he turns our to be a 'stupid mechanic' who has imitated others and copied an art-form that has been through many failed attempts.

There could be a number of designers

- after all, a ship or a house is created by a number of people; why should there only be one God?

The designer could be immoral

(after all, the creator(s) of a perfect ship aren't necessarily perfect people, just because a watch is perfect it doesn't make the watchmaker a perfect person).

Criticisms of the cosmological argument:

Hume questioned whether it is possible to make the jump from what Aquinas observed and the God that Christians believe in. The effect can't immediately point towards a particular cause.

Hume said that causation is

a psychological concept and we can't make links between cause and effect that is beyond our experience. Equally, he said that it isn't necessary to suppose that everything has a cause at all, which rejects the whole approach of Aquinas.

Hume argued that we can't make the jump from

the idea that just because everything in the universe has a cause or reason to exits then the entire universe must have a cause or reason to exist, (this is called the 'Fallacy of Composition').

* He said that just because you can explain the cause if each collection of 20 particles of matter, it doesn't mean that you can explain the cause of the group of particles.

In the context of Aquinas' Third Way, Hume said that it is illogical to suppose that there is any being whose nature requires a contradiction:

* he doesn't think that there can be a being that cannot not exist because something that exists (by definition) could not exist.
* Equally, why does it have to be God that is necessary: why can't the universe be necessary?

Examining Hume:

* Just because we can't fully understand God, why should the logic of the arguments be dismissed?
* It is reasonable to look for a total explanation of all events - so why not look for a reason for all 20 particles being grouped together?
* Modern science suggests that there is a definite beginning to the universe.
* We beed faith to make the final leap to understanding God.
* A vegetable only grows because the laws of biology work - where do these laws come from?
* Just because we have no experience of something, it doesn't mean that our current understanding cannot explain it.
* God doesn't have to share all the same characteristics as a human designer, e.g. God doesn't have a body.
* The creation of the world/universe is a unique event; why shouldn't there be a special case, such as God, to explain it?

Understanding the challenges to these arguments including the challenge of evolution

* Important to remember that Play was writing before evolution has been written about and so don't dismiss Paley without fair argument.
* Also important to remember that evolution is a challenge to the teleological argument more than it is a challenge to the cosmological argument.

Evolution challenges the teleological argument as it presents an alternative explanation as to how the world could exist as it does now;

there doesn't seem to be the need for a designer id evolution is accepted.

However, many religious believers feel that evolution can work alongside belief in God because

they see it as a tool that God used to make things as they are - it is another example of a simple law that can be seen in the world.

Darwin wrote 'The Origin of Species', which has defined evolutionary thinking ever since.

Darwin's theory of evolution was evolution by natural selection - things exist as they are because of natural methods, selecting what will survive and what will not; some suggest there seems to be no space for God in this approach.

* Twentieth-century discoveries about genetics have only supported his underlying principles.

Aspects of evolution and how they challenge

the teleological argument:

Inheritance and reproduction

- this places the emphasis not on the designer God, but on that is going on in the world.

Mutation

- changes in different species therefore don't happen because of a designer but because of naturally occurring mutations (chance)

Survival of the fittest

* the teleological argument claims that a designer is what effects change. The survival of the fittest says that it is nature competing against nature for survival that is what makes the change.
* Therefore, brutal nature is responsible for how we see the world around us, not a designer.

Adaptation

- this removes the guiding nature of a God who is intricately involved with his creation. Paley's fascination with birds' wings, for example, might be now explained by the need for an early form of bird to be able to fly in order to escape predators.

Extinction

- It is difficult to underpants why the God in the teleological argument allows such waste of species or would design fallible ones.

Development over time

- the designer seems to design a species 'all at once'.

Chance and randomness

- the design argument rejects any senses of chance; the guiding hand of God is the controlling force.

Teleological arguments have largely not continued in modern times; however, the anthropic principle suggests

that there is too much that has gone right in the world in leading to the existence if humankind for it to have come about by chance.

The aesthetic principle suggests

that the ability to recognise beauty is not something that would have come about by evolution (because there is no evolutionary advantage to it) and so must suggest a divine creator.

The medieval principle of preferring the simplest option when there is more than one possible explanation has led some thinkers to suggest

that a designer God is the easiest solution to how things have come about.

Some fundamentalist Christian groups think that

there are organisms that don't conform to the processes of natural selection and so there must be an intelligent designer behind the world.

* However, given the size of the universe it is difficult to see how our earth can be anything other than the lucky planet.

Ability to discuss whether or not there are logical fallacies in these arguments that can't be overcome

* A logical fallacy is an error in logic.
* Those who criticise the arguments for the existence of God have often pointed towards errors in their logic that mean the arguments could collapse.

Many of the points raised by Hume are accusations of logical fallacies;

the example of the 20 particles is a famous one: the Fallacy of Compositions, which says that it is an error to look for an explanation of a the whole composition of a group, as well as the individual explanations for the members of the group.

Some other logical fallacies that arise out of these arguments are:

* The assumption that all things are moved or have a cause or are contingent or have a purpose can be argued to be a logical fallacy because it is just that - an assumption.
* However, it does correspond with what we observe.

'Infinite regression':

Aquinas maintains that things can't go back to infinity. Arguably, things can go back to infinity, such as number on a number line going back (-1,-2,-3 and so on).

* However, this still doesn't answer the fundamental question about why there is anything in the first place.

The jump to a transcendent creator:

we have seen that Hume doesn't accept that we can move from the observations in the world to the idea of a creator who is the God of a religious faith. The conclusions of each of Aquinas' ways seem to move from a very narrow observation to a declaration that the uncaused causer (or mover or necessary being) is the Christian God. It cold be argued that this is an error in logic because it is a jump too far.

* However, some might say that all Aquinas is trying to of is to point towards an aspect of God and he isn't trying to prove all of God's attributes in such a short part of his work.

The cosmological argument suggests that there must be a 'special case' who is an unmoved mover, uncaused cause or necessary being.

This assumption could be a logical fallacy because it isn't clear why God has to be the special case. There is nothing like the universe in existence, so why can the universe not be the special case?

* However, the universe is still a 'thing', made up of matter. This point may not fully explain where the matter comes from.

Paley's view that regularity and order must come from somewhere might also be a jump in logic because

the regularity could come from chance or the way things have always been (e.g. gravity).

* However, it is important to consider this alongside intricacy and design - the other aspects of his argument.

It is also a fallacy to say that just because the arguments don't fully explain the existence of the God of religious faith,

it means that God cannot exist.

One question often asked is whether the theorist or the atheist should be the one to be forced to prove their viewpoints.

Hume himself was not able to prove the non-existence of God and so could be said to have been an agnostic, not an atheist.