Arguments based on observation

Teleological argument

An argument for the existence of god or, more generally, for an intelligent creator “based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world

Teleology definition

• Teleology stems from the Greek word ‘telos’ meaning end or purpose

• It is used in philosophy as an argument for the existence of god to suggest that there is order and a purpose to the world

• The teleological argument is also known as the design argument

• It is based on observation of the apparent order, design and purpose in the universe and the natural world to conclude that it is no the result of mere chance, but out of design

• The evidence from design points to a designer and the argument concludes that the designer is god

Maimonodies on belief of god

• the universe is not empty; we can at least be sure that the things we perceive with our senses exist, we can explain the existence of these things in one of 3 ways:

1. All things are eternal and sissy necessarily

2. Nothing is eternal and exists necessarily

3. Some things are ethereal and exist necessarily, some not:

• According to Maimonodies, the first explanation is obviously wrong; we see things come into existence at one moment, perish at another

• The second case is also wrong. If nothing were permeant, it is conceivable that everything might perish, and nothing take its place

• Miamonodes objects that the idea of an empty universe is absurd. So a necessary being is needed to ensure that the universe does not become depleted

Deductive arguments

• A deductive argument is an argument that i intended by the argued to be (deductively) valid, that is, to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion provided that the arguments premisses (assumptions) are true. Deductive reasoning is where we know that if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion must also be true. The conclusion is a logical consequence of the premise. It is not based on sensory experience, but on logical consequence of the premise. It is not based on sensory experience, but on logical processes.therefore, if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion will also be true.

• Here is a valid deductive argument: it’s sunny in Singapore. If it’s sunny in Singapore, he wont be carrying an umbrella. So, he wont be carrying an umbrella

Inductive arguments

• An inductive argument is an argument that is intended by the argued merely to establish or increase the probability of its conclusion. In an inductive argument, then it would be unlikely that the conclusion is false. Inductive reasoning is when people draw conclusions from particular examples. We see things happening a lot, and then we conclude that they always, or usually, happen. The person doing the reasoning uses their sensory experiences to make rules or predictions. Therefore, inductive arguments lead to conclusions that might be true - but might also be wrong

• If the author of the argument does not think that the truth of the premises defiantly establishes the truth of the conclusion, but nonetheless believes that their truth provides good reasoning to believe the conclusion true, then the argument is inductive

• Something that is known as posteriori is known based on logic, that is derived from experience

Scholars for teleological argument

• Aquinas (13th century)

• Paley (19th century)

• Tennent (20th century)

• Swinburne (21st century)

Scholars against teleological argument

• Hume (18th century)

• Mill (19th century)

• Darwin (19th century)

• Dawkins (21st century)

Reasoned argument

A reasoned argument is the chain of credible evidence that supports an assertion or claim

Natural theology

• Natural theology seeks to understand the existence and nature of good through looking at the things we can observe in the world around us

• Is it possible to reach conclusions about G-D through observing the world around us?

Key goal of Aquinas

• show how faith and reason work alongside each other

• Either revealed through revelation where god chooses to reveal the truth to people e.g., through the words of the bible

• Other way through human reason - (Aquinas thought this was given to us by god for this very purpose)

Aristotles 5th way

• Takes over from aristotle’s theory of the 4 causes, in particular the idea of the final causes, in particular the idea of the final cause, which is the purpose of things

• Everything serves a purpose

• He claims that not only is here purpose in the universe, but that purpose comes directly from the will of god

Aquinas’ 5th way

• When you look at the natural world, you can see that everything in it follows natural laws even if things are not conscious, thinking beings

• If things follow natural laws, they will tend to do well and have some goal or purpose

• However, if a thing cannot think for itself, it does not have any goal or purpose unless it is directed by something that thinks:

• Take an archer for example, a fling row can only be directed to its goal and used for its purpose by someone, such as an archer

5th way teleological argument

• Everything in the natural world follows natural laws, even if they possess no intelligence (e.g., gravity, the regular movement of the stars, ect.)

• By following these laws, they fulfil some purpose or telos

• They couldn’t do this by themselves as they “lack knowledge”, so much to be directed by an “intelligent being” - God

• Non-living things can have purpose - the river cannot decide to flow out to the sea because a river has no mind and yet does it. So too with the sun which cannot decide to rise in the morning and to make each day the right length and yet it does

Does everything have a purpose?

• Modern biology denies this, much is the result of chance

• ‘Purpose’ implies mental state and desire

• Some thins show no significant purpose, and even if we see purpose in thins, is the purpose in the thing itself or do we just see it as having a purpose

• If objects don’t have minds, then the purpose is not in the thing, but in the mind hat has the purpose for the thing

• In the example of the archer, the arrow doesn’t have any purpose at all. It is the archer who has a purpose for it

• We may see things as having a purpose, is it alway the case that it is always a good purpose?

• We may see things as having a purpose because we like to find reasons doe why things are as they are. Purpose is in our minds

• Even if we follow that everything has a purpose, it is always the case that it is always a good purpose?

• Design of a bed of nettles right next to dock leaves. Dock leaves being the antidote supposedly to stinging nettles. This looks like purpose in nature, but can still ask what is the purpose of nettles? Why do they sting us? Of course, we can find a propose for them is in the nettles themselves

Aquinas hesitates?

• Aquinas uses the words ‘or nearly always’

• Sometimes it’s difficult to see a good purpose in al things

• If there are things in the world that have no good purpose, do we think they are designed? If god is creator of all things, then why d things with no point exist?

Strength of Aquinas’ teleological argument

• Its more secular

• Still based in Christian theology

• Gives a religious view - accessible to many

• Observably true that there is a need for a cause

Weaknesses of Aquinas’ teleological argument

• Modern science is dubious

• His wording creates a hesitancy around his theories

• It is difficult for most to see a good cause in all things

• Relies on god

• Jumps to a conclusion, is a logical fallacy

• Problem of evil

• Evolution cannot explain the changes to inanimate objects

William Paley

• 1743-1805

• Archdeacon of Carlisle (Scotland)

• Wrote ‘natural theology’ (1802)

Paleys theory

• If you find a rock or a watch on the floor, you think about where its from

• If a watch has a maker of some kind, then the rock must too and by extension the world

• If all things have a maker, then there must be a god, as otherwise the world could not exist

Paleys aim for his theory

• He wanted to prove the existence of god using evidenced from the natural world

• To show the complexity of nature is far greater than any machine human beings can make

• That nature is too perfect and therefore must have a creator

Paleys observations of the world show god exist

• Creatures are too intricate to be created by chance

• Designer would know who to create and why

Paleys observations of the world do not show god exists

• if there as to be a creator then the creator must have been created, creating a looping paradox

• The world is imperfect

• Creatures are flawed

• Problem of evil

• Imperfect creation = imperfect creator

• Were we the standard of being designed/not broken

David Hume

• 1711-1776)

• Died before Paleys work was released so did not comment directly on Paleys examples

• In ‘Dialogues concerning natural religion’, three philosophers (Cleanthes, Demea, and Philo) discuss arguments from observation and design. Philo as critic, often ridicules cleanthes, the supporter of design

Humes Criticisms

2 categories:

• Problems using analogies

• Problems using observation

Humes problems with analogies

1. Can lead to mistaken conclusions

2. Not necessarily a grand designer, could be a human like god

3. Many designers

Humes problem with observation

1. The fallacy of composition - just because it is true in some areas of the world, can’t apply to the whole world

2. We cannot assume here is a designer

Epicurean hypothesis:

Hume puts forward the following idea:

• A finite number of particles, given eternal time, may eventually fall in order by chance. It might appear to be designed, but it was simply down to a constant motion or trial and error

• “This world… is very faulty and imperfect,… and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance”

Hume is right - teleological argument makes too many assumptions

• There is no proof of the divine

• Nature does not indicate perfection

• The crimes against humanity committed would indicate there is no divine figure - problem of evil

• Just because a human machine has a designer doesn’t mean the world needs a designer too

• Assumes the designer is a monotheistic god, could be many or a ‘silly’ god

• Assumes there was intentional design rather than chance

• Fallacy of composition, what is true in parts is also not true of the world

Hume is wrong - teleological arguments do not make too many assumptions

• Religion has evolved internationally; therefore, the majority of the world have come to the same conclution about the creation of the world there is probably a reason for that

• The fallacy of composition - just because some believe it does not mean it is true

• The flaws in the world could be explained by the divine being different from how it is thought to be

• Similar effects often have similar causes, Paley says that even if we don see a designer, there is one

• Many beleif there is a designer even if they are not religious. Hume is taking the analogy too far

• It seems more ridiculous to argue for change than design

• Paley only argues that there is purpose within the world

Charles Darwin

• the world is not a result of intelligent design, but a result of chance/natural selection

• Natural selection = survival of the fittest. He found that things adapted to their environment to sunrise

• The world just appears to be designed, but hat actually happens is the weak die and strong live - no external designer

• Some don’t believe that the deaths of people are designed. In this way Darwin saw no reason to believe there was a first design should be necessary

• Counter - god could have been the one to make creatures able to evolve

How does evolution change the teleological argument

1. No need for a designer if everything is random mutations

2. No overall purpose or design if everything is a random purpose

3. Challenges status and dignity of humankind as we have evolved the same way as animals

Evolution explains ‘design’ in the world

• Randomness is appreciated by humans i is the only world, we have known it stands to reason that we would take our ideas of design from nature

• Challenges the design argument as it says al is a result of chance

• Only appears to be designed as humans have made minds that design things with purpose and order

• Natural selection is a wasteful process. Supports the idea that there is no designer

• Natural process that has no foresight, plan or purpose in mind

Teleological arguments explain design better than evolution

• evolution must have been triggered by something

• Order, regularity and purpose is unlikely than it came about by chance

• Modern approaches incorporate evolution

• Paleys watch example - even if it’s broken still means there is a designer

• Tenant - god designed us or things in the world to give us pleasure

Richard Dawkins

• modern supporter of Darwin

• Argues against religious belief, because in his view religion is an excuse not to investigate scientifically

• DNA is a major way forwards in discrediting religion

• Nature is neither cruel nor caring - but just indifferent. Processes of evolution can’t ve ascribed feelings and purpose in this way

John Stewart mill

• doesn’t address issue of whether design arguments are logical like Hume. Rather suggests we see the world is government in a cruel and violent way with unnecessary suffering

• If world was deliberately designed than indicates something very different from a loving creator god

Anthropic argument

• Anthropic - relating to mankind or the period of mankind’s existence

• Argues that nature seems to plan in advance for the needs of humans

• The world had to be as it is in order for us to be here. There must have been some built in factor which made the development of human life inevitable

• This implies there is more than just the laws of physics at work here

Anthropic principle

• Science in the 20th and 21st centuries discovered the world is as it is because of a small number of physical constants, which have determined the way i has developed

• If any of them were different, even by the smallest degree, the universe would not have developed as it has, we would net even be able to contemplate the universe

FR tennant

• Design argument with acceptances of evolution

• Anthropic principle - way which the universe seems to be structured so that it was inevitable that life would develop

• 3 verbatim of AP - weak, participatory, strong

1. Evolution itself seems to have a suppose. Creatures don’t just randomly evolve, here is a complex progression. In ‘philosophical theology’ - argues that evolution has purpose and guide de from god

2. If something moving towards some kind of goal, must have a guiding hand - God - Just like Aquinas in his 5th way

3. Number of inherent coincidences in fundamental laws of nature and every one of these coincidences and specific relationships between different physical phenomena is necessary for life and for consciousness. If las of gravity or gases were different, humans wouldn’t be around - and yet we are. We are here against all odds therefore god

4. Weak - the fact that we are here, universe has necessary coincidences for us to exist. Allows scientists to make predictions about various aspects of the universe - but doesn’t give us an insight why it is this way

5. Participatory - some base views on quantum mechanics. Gives role to observer as well as to the observed - suggests that universe would not exist unless there were observers to see it.

6. Strong - somehow necessary for universe to have these special properties and coincidences. Doesn’t just happen but are necessary. Inevitable that human life should have come o bout, given the structure of the universe.

Criticisms of AP

• Some think weak AP has no meaning at all, just simply states the obvious

• Could be an infinite number of universes existing. We happen to live in one but have no access to others

• Illogical to argue that the universe is structured in the way that it is in order that human life can exist

• Is anything highly likely or unlikely to happen

1. If this is the case that amazing coincidence caused everything to fall into place for the existence of life remains a bad argument as it indicates it was bound to happen due to the infinite possibilities of the universe

2. Argument seems to give humanity a special status which is unwarranted. If it was structured different could be the same case with dung beetles or any other species

3. Think of the pods of you studying a subject or bing in a room ect. - the idea does not prove the existence of God but just the random effects of chance

Aesthetic design

• Tennant - existance of god based on beauty of the world. Aesthetic - appreciation of beauty

• Argues the universe is not just beautiful in places, it is saturated in beauty from the microscopic to the macroscopic

• Beauty dosn’t preform a utilitarian function in the world so no reason for so much of it, Inness put there by God for human enjoyment

• Some would agree that beauty is not an absolute quality but is a mattter of opinion

• Beauty has no survival value; it is unnecessary yet still explains

Cosmological

Arguments for the existence of god, based on the fact of the worlds existence

Premise of cosmological argument

Assumption:

The universe has not always been in existence and for it to come into being an eternal prime mover is necessary. The universe needs an explanation, and it can’t be explained without reference to causes outside of itself, the existance of a first cause is necessary. Ergo, god must exit

Key proponents of cosmological argument

• Aristotle thought movement and change meant there must be an ‘unmoved mover’ that lets the world change to move towards the perfection of this being

• Aquinas’ first 3 ways: motion, causality and contingency., infinite regress is impossible and the existence of everything must be traced back to a first cause

Infinite regression

• Important concept

• Unlimited number of past events

• Awuinas said that it was not possible

  • There mus have been a beginning, first event

• Aquinas rejected infinite regress

• Most hotly debated part of the cosmological argument

Aquinas’ cosmological argument

• He realised that the existence of the universe is not applicable without references and factors outside itself. It cannot be self-causing since it is contingent and only the existence of a first, necassary cause and mover explains the existence of the universe

• Aquinas put forwards in his book ‘summa theologica’ 5 ways in which he attempted t prove the existance of god as a posterior I. The first 3 ways make up the cosmological argument:

  • 1st way - argument from motion

  • 2nd way - argument from causation

  • 3rd way - argument from contingency

1st way - argument from motion

• an object has the porntial to become something different, so movement is the fulfilment of that potential

• Nothing can be both potential and actual at the same time

• When something is potential it hasn’t happened and so cannot be actual

  • Everything that moves is moved by something else

  • That mover must also be moved by something else

• Remember, no infinite regression

• Must have been something that started the changes without itself being moved

• The unmoved mover from Aquinas’ perspective was good

Wood and fire:

• the need for an external influence

• If wood could make itself hot than it would be hot to begin with

• Wood as it stands = actuality

• Fire can make it hot = potentiality

• If something can be a way, then surely it would be that without influence, therefore influence is needed for things to change and therefore there must also be a god.

2nd way - argument from causation

• everything has a cause

• Every cause has its own cause

• Nothing can be the efficient cause of itself. The reason for this is that it would already have had to exist in order to bring itself into existance. This would be impossible

• You cannot have an infinite number of causes

• Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause, which causes everything else to happen without itself being caused by anything else

• Such an uncaused cause is what people understand by ‘god’

3rd way - argument from contingency

• Ordinary things start to exist and later stop existing (in other words, they are finite, or contingent)

• Therefore at some time none of them were in existance

• But something only comes into existance by being caused by something else that already exists

• Therefore, there must be a being whose existence is necessary and therefore not limited by time. That being is what people understand by ‘god’

Contingent

Something that is dependant on something else, something that could not be

Necessary

Not generatable or corruptible, cannot be in existance

Nothing comes from nothing

• yet the world exists so something did come from ‘nothing’

• Therefore, there must always have been something

• There must have been something necassary

First way - motion

Evidence: everything in existance is in motion I or has the potential to change

Aquinas said ALL change or movement is caused by something, there has to be a prime mover

Second way - causation

Evidence: cause and effect are natural in our world

Whatever happens is caused by something else. It is illogical to say something caused itself, so there has to be an ultimate first cause

Third way - a necessary being:

Evidence: nothing in our world is permanent as everything has a tart and end

Everything in existence is contingent on something else, meaning there may have been a time when nothing existed

Since nothing can come from nothing, there had to be a something, a necessary being aka god

1st and 2nd ways difference

Unmoved mover:

• putting things into motion - attraction

• Movement cannot go on forever - infinity

Uncaused causer:

• creating those things that can be moved - making

• Can’t be an endless supply of object creating another object - infinity

Aquinas cosmological argument is convincing

• There must be a series of movers and cannot have infinite regression

• Needs to be an uncaused first cause

• Makes sense for things to rely on others

• Tries to explain how and why the universe exists

Aquinas’ cosmological argument is not convincing

• Just as reasonable to believe in infinite regression

• How can we be sure that one caused the other? It is impossible to do this for the world

• Jus because things in the universe are contingent dosen’t mean the universe is also contingent

• Jump to the idea of a god is unnecessary

• We cannot answer a question such as ‘why does the world exist’ so don’t bother asking it

Cause and effect

• inductive reasoning (based on observations) only leads to probable conclusions

• we can gather evidence from previous experience, but we can never be certain

• There is a small possibility examples such as the sun rising, tha it wont rise again for whatever reason

• Hume therefore argues, that even though we have observed cause and effect in some parts of nature, we can’t apply this principle to everything in the universe

• When we apply this principle of cause and effect to anything outside our actual Experience, we are making an inductive leap/assumption

• What we point out as cause and effect could be simple correlations

• They generally happen together, but it is not certain that the must happen together

• Hume argues that although every husband must have a wife, this doe snot mean that every man must be married

Humes assumptions

• Is god a special case/trancendant being?

• What is the cause of god?

• Could the universe be its own cause?

• Instead of the universe being contingent, could it be necessary?

• Why not accept the possibility of infinite regress?

• Is it possible that the chain of causes has no beginning?

• If we accept the universe has a cause, does it have to be the god of classical theism?

Humes criticisms of the cosmological argument succeed

• Hume suggests that awuinas is too reliant on inductive reasoning and the links between cause and effect are not certain. This challenges Aquinas second way because of there is no chain of cause and effect, there is no need to argue for a first cause

• We don’t need to assume everything has a cause - the universe just exists

• Infinite regress does not have to be impossible as Aquinas claims. Mackie wouldn’t support this

Humes criticisms of the cosmological argument fail

• we collect observations from the past to make predictions about the future - it is how we live

• And Combe argues that as humans we alway ask ‘why?’ or ‘what caused it?’ - it is a valid question

• Hume assumes that infinite regress is possible - but you cannot verify

Leibniz ideas

• any contingent fact about the world must have an explanation (the principle of sufficient reason)

• The fact that the world exists must have an explanation

• The fact that the world exists can’t be explained by any of the things in the world

Leibniz strengths

• it could be quite a good deep idea to think about having a powerful being beyond this world

• Use of analogy could help the logic

• Different perspectives - not only tules the world, but made it

Leibniz weaknesses

• Not real proof - its more about thinking than showing something

• He is making things moreover complicated

• Assuming things - not everyone will agree the ‘one being’ has a purpose

Teleological arguments can be defended against the challenge of chance

• nature is too complex to have been spawned from anything

• Watchmaker argument

• Logical nature has order and purpose - no non-living thing can have its won purpose or have its own cause

• If we saw a flying arrow you would assume that someone must have aimed and fired it - Aquinas’ 5th way

Teleological arguments cannot be defended against the challenge of chance

• technically is possible for a watch to be made from nothing or with no clear cause

• Multiverse theory

• Evolution theory

• There’s no standard for complexity - at what point does something become so complex it requires a creator

• Fallacy of composition