Essay Plan - Arguments from Observation
‘The teleological argument proves that the universe is designed.’ Discuss (40 marks):
Introduction:
Define teleological argument.
1 - Aquinas’ Fifth Way is fallible and produces a meaningless conclusion.
2 - Paley’s watchmaker analogy has false premises.
3 - Evolution supersedes the teleological argument as the cause of the universe.
P1
Intro:
Argument by Aquinasc
Based on apparent order and purpose that, shows design.
Argument:
Aquinas’ Fifth Way.
Example of the arrow shot by an archer.
Link to Aristotle’s Four Causes, everything has a final cause (purpose) - comes from G-d.
Counter:
Confuses the idea of a natural cycle with reaching an end goal, natural things don’t work towards a goal, they are just following a natural cycle, e.g. water cycle.
Doesn’t assign any attributes to G-d, Aquinas admits this “We call this being G-d”.
Similar to Maimonides criticism, who says this sort of argumentation for G-d “does not lead to the establishment of the Law and the principles of Religion”.
Conclusion:
Argument confuses its terms, and its consequences are meaningless.
P2
Intro:
Paley’s Teleological Argument based on design qua regularity, design qua purpose.
Argument:
Paley’s watch analogy.
Conclusion of his watch analogy.
Supported by anthropic principle, which suggests that just like Paley’s watch, the universe has certain constants that suited for intelligent life, suggesting a designer.
Counter:
There is no standard for complexity that is presented by Paley, at what point is something complex enough to be created.
Hume’s argument - not necessarily leads to a grand designer, scales example.
Conclusion:
Paley has no standard for complexity, and is rejected by evolutionary biology.
P3:
Intro:
Darwinism argument - world is a result of natural selection as opposed to intelligent design.
Argument:
Define evolution
World is random and by chance - not designed.
Backed by Richard Dawkins, who argued that nature is neither cruel, nor caring, its indifferent.
Counter:
Flaws in evolution argument - how did the first single-celled organism get there, does not explain the origin of life.
Problem of altruism.
Aesthetic design argument.
Conclusion:
Although there are flaws, the evolutionary theory is backed by science and empirical evidence of fossils and bones.
Conclusion:
Teleological argument does not prove the world was designed, rather it is based off of flawed logic, and an ignorance of evolutionary biology, that isn’t even that modern.
‘Aquinas’ first three ways provide compelling reasons to believe in God’. Discuss (40 Marks):
Introduction:
Define infinite regression.
1 - The first way does not understand the principle of causality.
2 - The second way still leaves us with the problem of evil.
3 - The third way relies on the falsehood of infinite regression, which does not appear to be the case.
P1:
Intro:
Explain motion in terms of potentiality and actuality.
Argument:
Aquinas’ first way.
Quote from Summa Theologica, “It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other”.
It is based on observation and empiricism as opposed to revelation or faith.
Can be applied to virtually any object, so anyone can observe it - not esoteric.
Counter:
Kant on the principle of causality in the cosmological argument.
Conclusion:
Aquinas makes a category error, fundamentally misunderstanding the principle of causality.
P2:
Intro:
Explain how everything has a cause and nothing causes itself.
Argument:
Aquinas’ second way.
It is a deistic being - Aquinas admits this “we call this being G-d”, therefore, it is a theodicy, as G-d does not control the world, so did not cause evil.
Counter:
Aquinas subscribes to classical theism - a personable G-d.
Aquinas’ second way leads to a personable G-d, timeless, spaceless, immaterial G-d.
Conclusion:
Aquinas’ second way is heavily flawed, and still leaves us with the problem of evil, which is a strong argument against G-d.
P3:
Intro:
Explain contingency and necessary beings.
Argument:
Aquinas’ third way.
Kalam cosmological argument - William Lane Craig.
Infinite regression is impossible.
Counter:
If the Kalam argument denies infinity actually existing, it can’t base its argument on the opposite, an infinite G-d.
Leibniz’s principle of sufficient reason - everything requires a reason for existing, extends infinitely, so infinite regression could exist - although Leibniz used this to argue there must be a starting cause.
Conclusion:
Aquinas’ third way relies on the idea that infinite regression is impossible, when it can be proved by sufficient reasoning.
Conclusion:
Aquinas’ first three ways rely on the false principle of infinite regression, leave us with the problem of evil, and misunderstands the principle of causality.
Assess Hume’s challenges of the teleological argument. (40 Marks):
Introduction:
Explain teleological argument.
1 - Analogies used for the teleological argument lead to mistaken conclusions.
2 - Problem of evil.
3 - Hume’s ‘trial and error’ argument is implausible.
P1:
Intro:
Paley’s Teleological Argument based on design qua regularity, design qua purpose.
Argument:
Paley’s watch analogy.
Conclusion of his watch analogy.
Supported by anthropic principle, which suggests that just like Paley’s watch, the universe has certain constants that suited for intelligent life, suggesting a designer
Counter:
There is no standard for complexity that is presented by Paley, at what point is something complex enough to be created.
Hume’s argument - not necessarily leads to a grand designer, scales example.
Conclusion:
Analogies lead to mistaken conclusions - the watch analogy presented by
Paley - watch is so unlike the world, so just because it has a cause does not mean the world does.
P2:
Intro:
Explain the problem of evil.
Argument:
Hume’s problem with observation, imperfections and flaws in the world imply an imperfect G-d.
Hume quote: “This world… was only the first rude essay of some infant deity”
Nietzsche on evil - “G-d is dead. G-d remains dead. And we have killed him.” - traditional conceptions of G-d being omnipotent and omnibenevolent no longer hold sway in our society, due to things like the problem of evil.
Counter:
Free will defence.
Eschatological defence
Conclusion:
Hume’s problem of evil stands, and the defences rely on the existence of a personable, Biblical G-d, which the teleological argument does not address.
P3:
Intro:
Teleological argument based on the principle that the complexity of the world implies a creator must’ve created it.
Argument:
Hume’s trial and error argument - may appear designed, but a finite number of particles, given enough time, may eventually fall into order, simply trial and error.
Supported by existence of a multiverse - multiple different universes are evidence of this ‘trial and error’.
Counter:
G-d could have practiced this ‘trial and error’.
Anthropic principle - certain constants in this world that imply that there must be a creator
Existence of objective moral values.
Conclusion:
Hume’s argument is wholly unrealistic, and the chances of it being correct is infinitesimal.
Conclusion:
Hume’s argument for the problem of evil and misuse of analogies show his criticisms of the teleological argument to be sufficient.
Critically evaluate a priori arguments against a posteriori arguments for God’s existence. (40 Marks):