Arguments based on observation

Cards (34)

  • Charles Darwin
    -Darwin published his work 'On the Origin of Species' in 1859
    -it was the most significant evidence to counter a theistic view of creation
    -little to no credible evidence has been produced since to suggest he was wrong
    -prior to this, atheists did exist in developed society, but were few and far between
    -Darwin himself was a theist, and although his work caused him to doubt creation, he always withheld that God existed nevertheless as the prime mover (his daughter's death confirmed his sceptical beliefs however, and at the end of his life could be called an agnostic)
  • the Enlightenment
    -age of Enlightenment refers to a variety of social movements (e.g. liberalism, religious tolerance etc.) that occurred throughout the 19th century
    -it was a time when scientific knowledge, exploration and technology were booming
    -like with Darwin's theories, such progression meant more and more people were questioning theism, religion and religious doctrine
    -atheism and doubt over creationism grew during this period
    -a need to prove God’s existence through scientific reasoning became more necessary
  • the Big Bang
    -in 1931, Georges Lemaître proposed what is now known as the Big Bang Theory
    -it was further developed by various physicists, and like evolution, was a theory lauded for having little evidence to debunk it
    --> remains the case today
    -like evolution, it countered creation theory, and the Big Bang provided a viable alternative explanation as to how the universe came to be
    -Lemaître was a theoretical physicist, but also ironically a Catholic priest
  • causal reasoning
    Conclusions derived from observing the relationship between cause and effect. 
  • deductive reasoning
    Conclusions derived from asserting valid propositions.
  • Aquinas
    -13th Century Italian Friar
    -considered as the greatest medieval thinker
    -developed many ideas from Aristotle & St Augustine
    -developed just war theory
    -famous for his 5 ways, which he claimed proved the existence of God: motion, cause, possibility & necessity, perfection, intelligence
  • William Paley
    -18th Century Anglican Clergyman and philosopher, who was influenced by the scientific discoveries of his day
    -famous for developing the teleological argument, in which God’s existence is proved empirically by observing the natural world
    -Newton's discoveries regarding gravity had shown that a few key rules seemed to govern the whole universe – a bit like a machine
    -Paley observed that complex objects work with regularity; seasons, planets etc.
    --> Paley believed this regularity had been put in place deliberately, and like Aquinas, he contributed this to God
    -however, his work predates that of Darwin
  • David Hume
    -18th Century Scottish philosopher
    -an influential empiricist – Hume believed experience and evidential reasoning to be superior to causal reasoning
    -Hume believed causal reasoning could not prove God's existence, and therefore provides arguments that largely counter the existence of God 
    -popular amongst atheists for his anti-religious reasoning, Hume was probably an agnostic rather than an atheist himself
  • Tennant's aesthetic and anthropic principles
    -aesthetic principle suggests evolution could not have produced humans without God’s interference with evolution
    --> how can Darwinian evolution explain our perception of beauty?
    --> it doesn’t give us a survival advantage, yet it evolved
    --> only God controlling evolution can explain this
    --> BUT beauty may have a function e.g. mate-attraction
    -anthropic principle 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”
    --> universe has to be orderly & the order must be of a particular kind in order for evolution to have been possible and thus for us to exist
    --> he suggests that our planet has been specially designed for human life to be possible
    --> BUT many planets with earth-like conditions
  • Aquinas' 5th way
    -Aquinas’ argument for design is based on Aristotle’s final cause, which he argues was the object's telos or purpose
    -Aquinas’ design argument is therefore sometimes referred to as the teleological argument
  • Aquinas' 5 ways
    -Aquinas' 5 ways are effectively 5 a posteriori arguments (arguments based on observation) that use causal reasoning to argue God's existence
    -argument for design is based on his 5th assertion, that God is the designer of all things
  • Aquinas' 5 ways continued
    -St Thomas Aquinas included his 5 ways in his 'Summa Theologica' (a complete study of God) which was unfinished as he died in 1274
    -Aquinas not only developed just war theory which outlined the rules by which war could be consistent with Christianity, but also developed the ethical system of Natural Law
    -NL, like the teleological argument, used this idea of design deduced from looking at something’s purpose or telos
  • Aquinas' 5th way explained
    -Aquinas' 5th way uses the observation that non-intelligent organic life acts in certain ordered, cyclical and purposive ways.
    -fact that non-intelligent things (like acorns and plankton) always act in certain ways for certain goals implies that they were given those goals by intelligence because only intelligent beings can assign a purpose to things and move that thing towards its purpose
    -Aquinas uses the example of an arrow
    --> cannot achieve its goal without the influence of the archer
  • another analogy for Aquinas' fifth way
    -a tree's roots connect it to the rest of the forest
    -when grazed by certain animals, a tree can produce toxins to make its leaves taste bad, thereby protecting its leaves
    -through its roots, it can then communicate with other trees and fungi which can act in similar ways
    -none of these plants have brains or the ability to think, yet they arguably act in almost conscious ways
  • Aquinas' argument for design
    -1) the natural world obeys natural laws
    -2) natural things flourish as they obey these laws
    -3) things without intelligence can’t direct themselves
    -4) therefore, things without intelligence require something with intelligence to direct them to their goals
    -5) this is God
  • strengths of Aquinas' teleological argument
    -examples in nature of non-thinking beings that act to achieve a purpose: a sunflower always turns to face the sunlight
    -correct that an arrow needs an archer to direct it
    --> in the same way we could argue that it seems reasonable to assume natural things are also directed towards their purpose
    -Aquinas is right that we need an explanation for purpose-purpose is a sign of a conscious mind that plans an end within its design (God is an explanation that works)
  • weaknesses of Aquinas' teleological argument
    -there could be another explanation for apparent purpose
    --> these living beings and organisms look purposeful, but it is because they have evolved to suit their environment (looks like design but has occurred because less well-adapted beings have died out)
    -Aquinas makes an assumption about purpose
    --> what we assume to be 'purpose' could be due to chance, or perhaps natural things do not have an innate purpose, it may be a human construct
    -Aquinas can be accused of a logical fallacy as he makes a logical leap to the idea of God of classical theism
    --> even if we assume their is a designer, there is no reason to assume the characteristics of this God (loving and powerful, e.g.)
  • Paley's teleological argument
    -Paley's watch analogy, explained in 'Natural Theology' (1802), uses an old-fashioned pocket watch to suggest telos must indicate design and a designer
    -the watch, with its cogs, levers and springs, has been carefully constructed by the watchmaker for the purpose of telling the time
    --> this begins Paley's design qua purpose argument for the existence of God
    -Paley compares the mechanical watch w/ observations of natural things that also seem mechanical and have purpose
    -his numerous examples include the eye, with its purpose of sight; feet, wings and fins all have purpose of movement; or the lacteal system in mammals, which provides enough milk for the number of offspring produced
    -such observations led Paley to the conclusion of a conscious mind that intentionally designed purpose and, for Paley, this designer is God
  • Paley's teleological argument continued
    -Paley also discussed criticisms of his watch analogy
    -for example, what if the watch was broken or unreliable in telling the time?
    -Paley's counter-argument was that it would be clear the watch had a purpose even if it did not fulfil that purpose perfectly
    -the quality of the design was not important
    -this counter-argument can be used against the objection of natural disasters in the world which to some indicate poor design or no designer
    -however, this may lead to further questions about the attributes of the designer (or god) or whether it is possible to jump from observations of the world to a divine designer
  • Paley's observations of the world show God exists
    -a designer would know what they created and why, giving their creation purpose
    --> since we can observe things that have purpose in the natural world, it suggests there was a designer behind it. Since we would assume a designer of the watch, so purposeful design in the world indicates a divine designer
    -purpose can be observed in living beings e.g. birds' wings seem to be designed to fly (for Paley, these observations infer a designer, God)
    --> Paley responded to criticisms about apparent lack of purpose-even if we do not understand how or why all the parts of the watch work, it would not detract from our conclusion of design
  • Paley's observations of the world show God exists continued
    -design qua regularity can be observed through the order and predictable patterns seen in nature, such as gravity
    --> so, Paley infers God as the designer behind this regularity
    -even if the watch was broken, we could infer a watchmaker because of the overall design and purpose
    --> similarly, even though there are things in the world that do not work perfectly, there is still evidence of design and, therefore, of God
  • Paley's observations of the world do not show God exists
    -Hume argues there is a leap from observing purpose in the world to assuming that this purpose was intentionally designed by God
    -Dawkins claims natural selection is a 'blind' process-no internal purpose, just cumulative mutations that enable creatures to adapt to their environment
    -some natural things don't seem to have a purpose or arguably have poor design, e.g. tapeworms aren't the most helpful
    -in physics, the law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) states there is a tendency towards disorder rather than order
    --> suggest there is no designing mind
    -too many faults in world to suggest a God designed it, e.g. earthquakes or insect larvae that eat their prey alive from the inside
    --> Hume argues instead that perhaps the designer has left or is malevolent
  • Darwin quote
    "The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered" ('Autobiography')
  • Professor Adrian Lister quote (Natural History Museum)
    "It's not that biologists don't understand that organisms are complex and functional, and it does seem almost miraculous that they exist. We realise that, but we think we've found another way of explaining it"
  • Aquinas' cosmological argument
    -Aquinas' cosmological arguments use observations about the universe and the natural laws within it to establish that it must have had a beginning
    -he is not only concerned with how the universe began, but tries to answer why it is here and why it continues
  • Aquinas' argument from motion
    -Aquinas uses Aristotle's ideas and adapts them in Way One
    --> for Aquinas, motion means change from potentiality to actuality e.g. cold things becoming warm (adapts Aristotle's idea of motus)
    -Aquinas argued nothing can move or change by itself; there can't be an infinite regress of movers
    -therefore, there must be an unmoved mover which itself cannot be moved or changed but which started the chain of movement and change
    --> called this unmoved mover God
  • infinite regress
    A chain of events going backwards for ever.
  • contingent
    Can exist or not exist; relies on something outside of itself to exist e.g. a baby is brought into existence by its parents and relies on oxygen and food to survive.
  • necessary being
    Can't not exist; doesn't rely on anything for its own existence and holds the reason for its being within itself.
  • deism
    Belief in a creator that started the world but then has no further involvement with it.
  • Aquinas' way two: the argument from cause
    -Aquinas explained that everything within the universe is the result of a succession of causes
    -as nothing can be its own cause (a logical impossibility), there cannot be an infinite regression (chain) of causes
    -there must be a first cause which is itself uncaused that began the chain of cause and effect
    --> Aquinas called this uncaused causer God
  • Aquinas' way three: the argument from contingency
    -everything is contingent; can exist or not exist
    -if things sometimes don't exist, it's possible there was a time when nothing existed
    -but there's something now, so how can something come from nothing?
    --> must have been a different & necessary type of being that brought things into existence (God)
    -Leibniz (1646-1716) asked why is there something rather than nothing?
    -Leibniz illustrated problem by imagining series of books, each 1 copied from previous manuscript
    --> no explanation for the series of books as a whole - why was there a 1st book? (needed to be a sufficient reason that explained the whole series)
    -while it's just as possible there could be nothing now, reason for world we experience is God who contains the reason for its existence within itself
    -later philosophers like Copleston developed Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason into own cosmological arguments
  • Aquinas' cosmological argument is convincing
    -Aquinas is convincing because as he says in Way One, we can observe motion in universe, e.g. ball will not move unless I throw it
    --> has to be a series of movers, but it can't go back to infinity
    -as Aquinas notes in Way Two, we can observe cause & effect in the world, e.g. if the door swings open and a cat walks in, I will look to see why the door opened
    --> needs to be an uncaused first cause that began this chain of effects
    -as Aquinas argues in Way Three, we can observe things that are contingent and rely on other things to exist, e.g. rely on air, food and parents to exist.
    --> w/o these things, would cease to exist
    -from observations, we can infer there must be a 1st mover, causer and necessary being that we could call God
    -Aquinas seeks not only to explain how the universe exists but why
  • Aquinas' cosmological argument isn't convincing
    -just as reasonable to assume there could be an infinite regress of movers/changes rather than an unmoved mover who started the chain of movement
    -possible what we understand to be cause & effect is more like a correlation than a cause; they may occur together, but we can't be sure one caused the other
    --> impossible to observe the cause of an effect such as the creation of the world
    -Aquinas makes a leap in logic in Way Three: just because things within the universe are contingent, doesn't mean universe is also contingent
    --> another version of the fallacy of composition
    -jump to the idea of God or a necessary being is an assumption
    --> necessary being could be a different type of God, e.g. a deist creator
    -existentialists would argue asking why the universe exists is an unanswerable question
    --> shouldn't even ask the question