The teleological argument

• Aquinas pointed to the fact that when we observe natural things, we see they do not behave naturally. How do they behave?

  Goal-directed, flowers move towards the sun, birds fly south in the winter etc
• Since behaviour is goal directed, who must control it?

  Some intelligent being that sets the goal and orients natural beings according to it
• What example does aquinas use to illustrate the inference of an intelligent being?

  Arrow and archer
• Explain the arrow and archer example:

  Humans can direct an objects behaviour by exerting a force on it, like an archer does with an arrow. The arrow hits the target even though it isn’t intelligent enough to direct its own behaviour. if we see an arrow directed towards a target, we can therefore infer that there must be an archer who sent it
• How does the arrow and archer example help prove the existence of god?

  Since we observe goal directed behaviour of non-intelligent natural beings, we can infer there must be an intelligent mind responsible for that, which is god as it is directing objects much greater and in a more sophisticated way than humans do
• What is the behaviour of objects governed by?

  Natural laws (law of nature and physics)
• Palsy’s design qua purpose is his ….. analogy?

  Watch
• If we found a watch on a heath, why would we think differently to if we found a rock on it?

  Because a watch has complexity enabling purpose
• What can be infer when a thing has the property of purpose enabled by complexity?

  Design
• the property (design) we observe in a watch is also observed where?

  In nature (the human eye, wings of a bird, fins of a fish etc)
• Because watches have a designer and the property of this is also observed in nature, what does this infer?

  Nature must have a designer
• How does the fact that nature has a designer, help prove the existence of god?

  Nature is much greater than any human design, so the designer of nature must be more powerful than any human designer and distinct from the world it exists.
• What is a designer?

  A mind who is distinct from, what is designed
• What type of argument is paleys watch? A p… and ….ductive

  A posteriori and inductive because it’s premises involve observations of the world which are used as evidence for the conclusion that god exists
• What are Swinburne's view on design arguments?

  He supports them, arguing analogically argumentation is scientifically valid - If a scientist doesn’t know the cause of X but they know X is similar to Y which they do know the cause of. It is rational for scientists to hypothesis that the cause of X is similar due to the cause of Y
• What does Hume think about design regiments?

  He objects them because he believes that things which are like each other have very different causes e.g. dry ice and fire produce the similar effect of smoke but are not similar causes. So even if things in nature are like a watch or an arrow, that doesn’t mean the causes are alike (i.e. an intelligent mind)
• What versions of the design argument does Humes critique not work against?

  Versions of the argument which are based on probability rather than analogy
• How to counter argue Hume's critique?

  Paley is saying that the universe is designer because it has complexity and purpose not because it is like a watch. That is just an illustration of how complexity and purpose comes from a designer. This could be applied to aquinas too. The arrow is just an illustration of how goal-directedness comes from a designer, therefore Hume’s critique of the analogy fails
• explain humes critique ‘god is not the only explanation’

  Hume argues that even if the design argument worked, it would not prove a Christian got in particular. Just as possible is a committee of gods (polytheism), a junior god or even a god who then died. There is no basis for preferring the Christian god as an explanation for design in the universe, compare to those other options. Therefore even if the design argument is logically sound, it is limited
• what is the main counter argument to Humes ‘god is not the only explanation’

  aquinas, paley and Swinburne aren’t trying to prove the Christian gods in particular, they know the design argument can’t do that. They broadly follow aquinas’ natural theology, therefore the proponents of the design argument never claimed that it proved what Hume is accusing them of
• What does aquinas’ natural theology involve, in relation to Humes argument against design ‘god is not the only explanation‘

  A reasoned inductive argument intended to support faith by providing evidence for a creator or designer
• How does Darwin disagree with the existence of god with reference to evil?

  He noted how vicious natural selection is, concluding ‘I cannot see evidence of design‘. He illustrates with digger wasps laying eggs inside caterpillars that are eaten from the inside when they hatch, which therefore for Darwin is not credible to think a perfect god designed the world
• How does Hume disagree with the existence of god with reference to evil?

  Humes evidential Problem of evil makes a similar point to Darwi. Excessive suffering could have been avoided if nature was designed differently, so natural evil is evidence against a perfect creator and designer.
• How is Humes Evidential problem of evil argument stronger than his committee of gods argument?

  Because it claims that the world could not have been designed by the Christian gods not merely that it could have been another god either
• How to religious philosophers respond to the design vs problem of evolution argument to disprove gods existence?

  They attempt to respond that god cannot remove evil without also removing some greater good necessarily connected to evil. We were also given free will and so suffering and evil can be manmade. Also Augustine believes that it could be our deserved punishment from original sin
• How does hick argue for evil to prove gods existence?

  Random evil is actually how a perfect god would design the world, to avoid breaking the epistemic Distance
• How does Darwin conclude evolution in order to counter argue design?

  Complexity and purpose in organisms can be explained through simpler more scientific means which belief in a designer is unnecessary
• What did tennant think about the design argument in relation to evolution?

  It needed formulating to address evolution. He improved Paley’s approach focusing on the spatial order of earth rather than organisms. His anthropic claims that God must’ve designed the for evolution to be possible - Earth has the right chemical composition for life such as carbon and liquid water on the surface and we are the right distance from the Sun for water to be liquid, Earths metal core generates a magnetic field shielding us from solar radiation. Therefore the chances that the planet would have all these are very low so it is more reasonable to think that God exists And designed it
• How is tennants defence deemed unsuccessful in reference to planets?

  We have since discovered many other earth like planets and we know that there are trillions of planets in our galaxy alone. Advances in astrophysics then disprove tenants argument just as evolution undermined paley as paley did with animals what tenant did with the Earth. Therefore, it is not logical to move on from our not having an explanation of something to God must be the explanation.