telelogical argument - summary
AO1
telelogical argument → an argument for the existance of God because of the purpose seen within the world
aquinas 5th way → Aquinas observed that natural objects/beings do not behave randomly, but moved towards a certain goal or purpose (end/telos).For example, flowers can move in alignment with the sun throughout the day to get more sunlight. An arrow hits a target even though it isn’t intelligent and cannot comprehend what it’s doing. There must be something which can comprehend the goal/end of the arrow and influenced/designed it to move in the way it does: the archer (who has intelligence) did this by shooting the arrow in a particular way while having the goal/end in mind.
paleys design argument → design qua purpose - an object/things purpose + design qua regulairty - consistancey of the universe (orderlyness) Paley illustrates this with the example of a watch. There is something about a watch which suggests it had not always been lying there. It is composed of parts which are intricately formed so as to produce a motion which is so meticulously regulated as to point out the hour and minute of the day. It has complexity which is arranged so as to perform a purpose. Since complexity and purpose in a watch tells us there must have been a watch maker, similarly, the complexity and purpose in the universe tells us that there must have been a universe designer.
AO2
A crucial pillar and strength of design arguments is their use of analogy: Analogy provides a best explanation style argument. When we cannot directly observe the cause of something, it is empirically valid to turn to analogy. Swinburne claims that arguments by analogy are “common in scientific inference”. If we know X is caused by Z, then we can reliably infer by analogy that something similar to X is caused by something similar to Z.
Weakness: Hume’s objection to analogy in design argument: Hume argues that it doesn’t follow from the similarity of two effects that they must have had similar causes. So, just because the effect of the universe and the effect of a man-made thing like a house (Hume’s example) or a watch (Paley) are like each other in that they both have complexity and purpose, it doesn’t follow that the cause of the universe must be like the cause of a house/watch i.e., a designer. The creation of the universe is so far from our understanding, So, we have no hope of claiming an analogy between the origin of anything in the universe and the origin of the universe itself nor can we create an analogy between the universe which is more organic than a machine
Evaluation defending the design argument: Hume’s criticism is unsuccessful because Paley’s argument is arguably not based on an analogy.Modern philosophers often read Paley’s argument as not being based on an analogy between artefacts and the universe. His argument is that there is a property which requires a designer. better to use his examples of the eye or wings to show this. - . We know the universe is designed because it has complexity and purpose. -
Evaluation criticising the design argument: Hume’s argument is at least successful at criticizing analogical versions of the design argument, such as Aquinas’ and Swinburne’s.
is God the best or only explanation: A strength of the design argument is its basis in Aquinas’ Natural theology: The advantage is that Aquinas carefully positioned his arguments to not claim too much. Paley adopts the same approach. They both accept that the design argument at most shows there is some designer of great power, but it doesn’t prove the Christian God in particular. A. McGrath he design argument shows that it is reasonable to believe in a designer. Christian belief is an case of belief in a designer, so Christian belief is reasonable. Aquinas claims this supported faith.
Weakness: Hume’s ‘commitee of Gods’ objection: Hume argues that even if we had evidence of design in the universe, that would not support the claim that it was designed by the God of classical theism. It could have been made by a junior God, apprentice God – or even a God who died. There could be multiple designers – ‘a committee of Gods’. So, the design argument doesn’t even justify monotheism.
Evaluation defending the design argument: Swinburne claims that Hume’s points here are correct and that the design argument cannot prove that the designer has the attributes of the God of classical theism. However, Swinburne thinks that Ockham’s razor can be used against some of Hume’s claims here. One God being responsible for the design of the universe is a simpler explanation than multiple. only however sucesseful agaisnt paley not aquinas since aquinas doesn’t specfically say that it is the classical theistic God
Evaluation criticizing the design argument: It’s not rational to believe something simply because it is consistent with observation. Actual evidence is required. So, if the design argument was used to support belief in some generic God, that would be valid. However, it is not valid to use it to support belief in any particular God.
evolution and the problem of evil: A strength of design arguments is that they are inductive and a posteriori: Philosophers like Hume & Russell and scientists like Dawkins doubt God’s existence for empirical reasons. They argue there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in God. Design arguments directly targets that position by attempting an inductive proof of God. They use a posteriori evidence as premises to inductively support the conclusion that God exists
Weakness: Hume’s evidential problem of evil: The argument is that proponents of the design argument focus on the ‘good’ design but ignore the bad or evil design. Hume aims to show that a posteriori observation of the world cannot provide a basis to conclude that a perfect God exists because the world contains imperfections like evil. dawkins supports this with his example of the digger wasp Darwin and Hume aren’t trying to show that there is no designer, just that a posteriori evidence cannot be used to show that the designer must be the God of classical theism
Evaluation defending the design argument: Paley responds that even a broken watch must have a watch maker, and so too must it be with the universe.
Evaluation criticizing the design argument: We now know evolution of multicellular organisms has been occurring for at least 600 million years. his prompted C. Hitchens to argue that evolution itself is not just evidence that a perfect God didn’t create us, but is actually evidence there is no perfect God
darwin and evolution vs telelogical argument: A strength of the design argument is its reliance on purpose, which is difficult for an atheistic and scientific approach to account for and explain. Paley noted that mere complexity by itself could result from chance, but when combined with purpose it becomes more reasonable to infer design. Aquinas’ design argument also relies on purpose. We observe that entities act towards an end.
Weakness: Darwin’s theory of evolution by the process of natural selection showed that order in nature was not necessarily evidence of purpose and design but could instead be explained by natural scientific means. Richard Dawkins called his book where he criticised the design argument “The Blind Watchmaker”. This is a reference to Paley. Dawkins is accepting that yes there is a watchmaker of the universe, but it is blind, meaning the mechanical forces of nature.
F R Tennent: Tennent’s aesthetic principle suggests that evolution could not have produced humans without God’s interference with evolution. How can Darwinian evolution explain our perception of beauty?
beauty however can have evolutionary meas such as mate attraction
Tennent’s anthropic principle. Tennant points out that this universe being hospitable to living beings requires a “unique assembly of unique properties” on a “vast” scale, including “astronomical, thermal, chemical, and so on”
Swinburne’s anthropic fine-tuning design argument from temporal order: The strength of Aquinas’ approach, developed by Tennant & Swinburne, is the focus on temporal order Swinburne was influenced by Aquinas’ 5th way and Tennant’s anthropic principle which pointed to order in the way the universe works, not merely the complex spatial order of objects and their parts Temporal order (regularities of succession) refers to the orderliness of a thing’s behaviour over time due to physical laws.
Temporal order is maintained by natural laws – the laws discovered by physics
So, Swinburne argues we must turn to another sort of explanation. We know from experience that temporal regularities can be caused by persons. Human minds often impose temporal regularities through their choices, such as choosing to sleep at night. The explanation of those temporal regularities is that they were designed, i.e., intentionally created by an intelligent mind. Swinburne calls this a personal explanation.
is God the best or only explanation: Hume’s Epicurean hypothesis → random universe, given an infinite amount of time, will by complete chance occasionally assemble itself into an orderly one.
The glaring issue for Hume’s point is that the current scientific evidence suggests the universe, at least our observable universe, began at the big bang some 13.8 billion years ago. It hasn’t had an infinity of time to organise by chance
humes unquie case: In this argument, Hume sets an empirical standard for justifiably inferring a designer from the universe and argues design arguments have not met it.If we want to infer the existence of a designer from a thing, we need either:
Experience of that thing being made conjoined with its designer.
Experience of similar things being made and their designer
and we have niether of these experieces
The universe is a unique case because nor do we experience the origin of other universes, let alone creators conjoined with them. So, we ultimately have no basis on which to infer the existence of a creator from our universe. Hume concludes that the origin of the universe, “exceeds all human reason and enquiry.” The only rational thing to do is suspend judgement and admit that we do not know why the world exists as it does
Counter to Hume: design arguments as abductive: We could read design arguments as abductive – inferences to the best explanation. Swinburne especially seems to present the design argument in this form. He argues we lack a scientific explanation, and that in fact a scientific explanation is impossible. This justifies us in seeking a ‘personal explanation’ as that’s the best explanation we have.
Evaluation critiquing the design argument: However, Hume would object. We could grant Swinburne his premise. hat a scientific explanation is impossible. Nonetheless, it does not follow that we are justified in seeking another explanation. Hume’s point is that there is a minimum standard of evidence required to infer a designer. If we don’t have a scientific explanation, we have no explanation. Swinburne’s ‘personal’ explanation fails to meet Hume’s standard. When it comes to the cause of the universe, inference merely from causes we observe in the universe is inadequate. So, we should suspend judgement and accept that we do not know why the universe is the way it is.