Teleological

• What is a teleological argument?

  Uses empirical means to show that creation has a purpose and as such has been intelligently designed
• Teleological arguments

  • A posteriori, after experience
  • Design arguments
  • Design of the universe infers a god like designer
• Aquinas’ argument from analogy

  • Things that lack intelligence have an end, a purpose
  • things that lack intelligence can’t move towards their goal unless they are directed by someone with knowledge and intelligence
  • an arrow does not direct itself but needs an archer to guide it
  • therefore (by analogy) there must be an intelligent being that directs organisms to their purposes
• Possible objection to Aquinas argument from analogy

  • Premise 2 assumes that everything needs to be directed by an intelligent being
  • we can observe things such as acorns, embryos that develop without any interference from an intelligent being
• Hume design argument

  • atheist
  • formulated his own argument as a way of exploring with his own ideas regarding God
  • 3 character in dialogue
  • Philo - a skeptic
  • Demea - a believer in god
  • Cleathes - a middle ground, empiricist
• Humes Design argument - Syllogism

  1. The world is comprised of machines adjusted to work towards an end
  2. Like causes resemble effects, machine requires human intelligence
  3. In the same way, intricacies of world and universe require divine intelligence
• Hume continued (re design argument)

  • Hume infers an ultimate creator from material substance when regarding the grand scale of the universe, needing a creator with larger faculties proportioned to the work executed
• Objections to Humes Design argument

  • Philo argues the universe is more like a vegetable than a machine
  • grows in accordance with natural processes
  • Hume is rejecting all design arguments from analogy on the basis machines and the universe aren’t comparable
• Paleys Design argument

  • complexity and intricacy of a watch attests to it being intelligently designed
  • Similarly the human eye is complex and must require an intelligent designer, completely fit for its purpose and intricate
• Paleys design argument - syllogism

  1. A watch has complex features that work together for a specific purpose
  2. anything with these features of spatial order and purpose must be designed
  3. from (1) and (2) the watch has been designed by a designer
  4. The universe has features of spatial order ad purpose except on a far wondrous scale
  5. Therefore the universe has a Designer of a wondrous scale
  6. Therefore that designer is god
  7. Therefore God exists
• Paleys attack on Humes epicurian hypothesis

  EPICURIAN HYPOTHESIS: universe came about randomly, grows like a vegetable in accordance with natural processes

  • Paley refutes this - the watch and eye are fit perfectly for its end
  • Hume is proposing a law of metallic nature
  • those who claim metal will somehow on its own naturally come together to form a wath
• Paley response to infinite regress

  • Paley anticipates an infinite regress argument
  • ie the watch isn’t just a watch but also a watch making machine
  • No need for a designer
  • Paley - Who created the first watch making machine? Absurdity of infinite regress
• Objections to Paley

  • The reason we know watches are intelligently designed isnt because they are complex but is because we have seen people make watches
  • We havent seen any human being make a human eye before, and we haven’t seen anyone make a universe before so the same conclusion cannot be drawn
• Swinburnes argument from temporal regularity

  Regularities in time are enough to infer the existence of an intelligent designer

  • regularities of succession are best explained by intelligent design
  • TIME is a regularity of succession
• Temporal order: The order of laws in nature

  Spatial order: order in nature

  • evolution can explain spatial order (ie the eye) but not temporal order (ie time)
  • We can’t give a scientific reason for WHY the laws of nature are the way they are
  • Best explanation of temporal order is a personal one
  • ie ‘that building exists because someone designed and built it‘
  • Can explain laws of nature in a similar way - best explanation is God
• Objection: spatial disorder

  • many flaws in creation
  • ie misery of animals (including humans) that are struggling to survive
  • perhaps god is senile or a child - undermines his Omani-conceptual nature, would make him not perfect
• Objection: Universe is a unique case

  • Rarely take anything for granted based off of one experience because we
  • Because of cause and effect
  • We only have one universe to compare to
  • We have nothing to show that a designing proves in action
  • We don’t even have experience as the universe as a whole
  • We can’t infer the existence of god from such little data
• Hume on causation

  • we never experience causation only the ‘constant conjunction’ of one event following another
  • we infer that A causes B
  • ie the sun rises and sets everyday
  • But you don’t experience A causing B but it is still reasonable to argue it will happen
  • but if you took a sip of a drink and your friend sneezed at the same time, wouldn’t be plausible to say A caused B
  • can’t infer causation from a single experience
  • can’t infer god exists from one universe
• Objection: suitability of god as the only/best explanation

  • machines are the result of much trial and error
  • theists argue that the universe is perfect and so similar to machines
  • however our machines are imperfect which makes them disanalogous
  • machines are often the result of multiple designers
  • doesn’t align with monotheists conception of God
  • may have been designed from a committee
• Objection: Epicurean Hypothesis

  Time is infinite

  Matter is finite

  • Matter will eventually organise in a way that appears designed
  • Monkey typewriter example
  • Universe came about due to random processes - more empirically verifiable - big bang, singularity
• Kant on design arguments

  • they draw too strong a conclusion
  • creators don’t create the materials they use to create
  • Kant argues that design arguments only infer the existence of a being who has laid out plans for a universe (architect) not the being that created the materials
• Objection: ‘Lofty purpose’ Kant

  • purpose of design arguments is to prove
  • there is a being that created the universe
  • that being contains perfections
  • Paley requires us to ascribe godly traits to a watch maker
  • can’t conclude that Kant’s architect has godly attributes
  • can’t use evidence in the world to conclude god is perfect and exists
  • can’t move from evidence in the world (that the world has uncanny regularity) to the conclusion God is perfect
• Objection: Evolution

  • Evolution by natural selection explains how complex organisms emerge without a designer
  • Giraffe long neck example
  • given enough time nature adapts in a way that appears designs
  • undermines Paley
  • doesn’t account for temporal order - Swinburne