Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Arguments based on observation - Coggle Diagram
Arguments based on observation
The teleological argument
Aquinas' Fifth Way
The focus for Aquinas is how we achieve our
purpose (telos)
- it must be due to God
Aquinas believed that all things have a purpose, but but we cannot achieve that purpose without something to make it happen - God
Aquinas entitles his argument 'From the Governance of the World'
He said that things that lack knowledge (eg natural bodies) act for a purpose, and this acting for an end always leads to the best result - this must happen by design or intention
Anything that lacks knowledge needs something with knowledge to guide it - therefore there is an intelligent being that directs all natural things to their end (God)
For Aquinas, the world is
governed
by God, who is the guiding force that makes things achieve their purpose deliberately -
natural bodies
are all things of less intelligence than God
Aquinas
- "Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end, and this being we call God"
Arguments from analogy
Aquinas uses various analogies in his arguments, such as the
arrow and the archer
- to describe how God guides natural bodies to their purpose or end
Some have argued that arguments from analogies are weak, and can only suggest something that shares a characteristic, others consider them useful in illustrating a complex argument but are on their own insufficient
Strengths
There are examples in nature of non-thinking beings that act to achieve a purpose - sunflowers always turn to face the sunlight
It is correct that an arrow needs an archer to direct it - in the same way we could argue it seems reasonable to assume natural things are also directed towards a 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
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 - it 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, purpose may be a human construct
Aquinas can be accused of a
logical fallacy
because he makes a logical leap to the idea of God of classical theism - even if we assume there is a designer, there is no reason to assume the characteristics of this God
Paley's teleological argument
Paley observed that complex objects work with
regularity
, for example the seasons of the year happen with order, the planets rotate with order, gravity works with order
This order seems to be a result of the work of a designer who has put this regularity and order into place deliberately
The way things work seem to have been put together deliberately with purpose:
The eye seemed to Paley to have been constructed deliberately with the purpose to see
The wings of a bird operate with such intricacy and with the purpose to aid flight that there seems to be a designer behind them
Cells are so intricate that there seems to be purpose behind them
For Paley, all this pointed to a designer, who is God - Paley believed there is evidence of design, and that God's creative action is continuous and God will look after humans on a small and large scale
Analogy of the watch
If I were to come across a rock, I could explain its origins referring to natural causes
If I were to come across a watch, there couldn't be a natural explanation
The watch is complex and made up of cogs and springs, and this design couldn't have come about by chance - there must be a watchmaker who designed it with the purpose of telling the time
The world is even more complex than a watch in how it is put together, so there must be a creator - God
Whether or not we had seen a watch before, it is clearly different to the rock in nature and origin
Even if the watch is broken, there is enough design to suggest a watchmaker (he is not commenting on the quality of the design)
Even if we don't fully understand the watch, we would still identify design
Paley's argument uses the understanding of his day about machines to conclude that, by analogy, the world must be a machine with a designer and creator
Paley uses regularity, order, intricacy, purpose and design to make his points
Strengths
A designer would know what they wanted to create 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 (as we would assume a designer of the watch, so purposeful design in the world indicates a divine designer)
Purpose can be observed in living things eg 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 don't understand how or why all parts of the watch work, it would not detract from our conclusion of design
Design qua regularity
can be observed through the order and predictable patterns seen in nature, such as gravity - 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 God
Weaknesses
Hume
argues there is a leap from observing purpose in the world to assuming that this purpose was intentionally designed by God (a logical fallacy)
Dawkins
claims that natural selection is a 'blind' process - there is no intentional purpose, just cumulative motions mutations that enable creatures to adapt to their environment
Some natural things don't seem to have a purpose or arguably have poor design eg a wasp or the human appendix
In physics, the law of entropy (second law of thermodynamics) states that there is a tendency towards disorder rather than design - this suggests there is no designing mind
There are too many faults in the world to suggest a God designed it - eg earthquakes or tsunamis - Hume argues instead that perhaps the designer has left or is malevolent
Hume's criticisms
Criticisms of arguments from analogy
It is not necessarily true the world is like a watch
It might be true that a watch looks as if it is designed, but it is harder to say the world has these characteristics - Hume therefore rejects the idea that the analogy is suitable
The world could be said to be more like a vegetable that has characteristics of intricacy (a complex natural object), rather than a machine like a watch
Hume used the
Epicurean hypothesis
which said that given an infinite amount of time, all the particles in the universe would be able to combine in every possible combination - eventually, a stable environment would be created and and that could be the world in which we live - therefore randomness explains the universe, not a designer - for Hume, the teleological argument does not prove that the only way in which the world could be as it is comes from God
Analogies can lead to mistaken conclusions - eg the analogy of the blood circulatory system in humans can apply to other animals but not to how sap works in plants
Why is a grand designer inferred through design arguments? The evidence could suggest a human-like god, or an inferior, young or ancient god, possibly one that was ashamed of their creation of a flawed world
There could be many designers of the world, just as there are different craftsmen who makes houses or ships
Weaknesses of Hume's criticisms
Similar effects often have similar causes -
Paley
argues that even if we had not seen the watch being made, we would still assume design and a designer - we have not seen the universe being made but can see from the effects (purpose and design) that there is a designer
Hume is taking the analogy too far - many agree there is a designer of the world but do not hold religious beliefs or infer the characteristics of the designer
Paley responded to this criticism - he could not throw all the parts of the watch in the air and expect them to fall so that the watch worked and told the time - it seems more incredible to argue for chance than it does for design
However, Paley does not argue that there is a purpose behind the whole world, only things within it
Hume's criticisms of the teleological argument predate Paley, it is likely Paley likely was aware of them but rejected them
Criticisms of arguments from observation
Our world is finite and imperfect, why should God be infinite and perfect - why couldn't God be finite and imperfect as well?
Hume uses the example of a pair of scales where one side is hidden - just because we know one side is heavier than the other, we don't know the exact weight of the other side
Just because we might see evidence of a designer, we do not know anything about the nature of the designer
The designer could have created this world through a series of trial and error experiments (just like a watchmaker would)
The world could be the first attempt of an 'infant deity' who then abandoned the world
Hume uses the example of a shipbuilder who makes a wonderful ship, but when we meet him turns out to be a 'stupid mechanic' who has imitated others and copied an art form that has been through many failed attempts
There could be a number of designers - a ship or a house is created by a number of people, why should there be only one God?
The designer could be immoral - just because a watch/creation is perfect, it doesn't mean the watchmaker is a good person
While we can observe order or purpose in parts of the natural world, we cannot apply the same criteria to the whole world - this is the
fallacy of composition
We have observed the design and manufacture of machinery but have no experience of universes being designed, so we should not assume a God-like designer - if we study a natural object such as a cabbage, we would not conclude there is a cabbage maker - the conclusion depends on the example used
Strengths of Hume's criticisms
We cannot assume that just because a human-made machine has a designer, the world needs a designer too - illustrated by Hume's scales analogy - there is no way to know what is balancing the weight if one side is hidden from view
The design argument assumes this designer is the monotheistic God - the designer could also be several Gods, or a malevolent or stupid god because of the flaws in 'design'
The design argument assumes the fallacy of composition - what is true of the parts is true of the whole - just because parts of the world have purpose, does not mean the world as a whole has purpose and therefore a designer
Evolution
Darwin
proposed the theory of natural selection, later known as
Darwinism
He used observations and evidence to show that through natural selection, those creates most suited to their environment will survive and pass on their characteristics to the next generation
Challenges to the teleological argument
If species have survived due to adaptation to the environment, there is no need for a designer or God
If evolution is a random process, there is no overall purpose or planned design - the apparent design or 'purpose' is merely a result of chance
Evolution challenges the status and dignity of humankind because humans evolved in the same way as animals - where is the soul or uniqueness of humankind?
Richard Dawkins
argues that evolution is carried on through random but cumulative mutations in DNA which produce the variations in living organisms - this process is 'blind' and has no overall purpose, plan or telos - therefore there is no need for a designer or God to explain purpose
Strengths of evolution's challenges
Evolution challenges the design argument because it explains regularity and purpose as a result of a chance - chance and random mutations may give a survival advantage which allows creatures to reproduce more and so it looks as if they are designed to their environment
Evolution gives an alternative explanation - the world appears to be designed only because humans have minds that design things with purpose or order - evolution uses evidence from observation to show that there is a natural explanation without the need for a God or a supernatural designer
Natural selection is a wasteful process - it seems cruel because creatures that are not well adapted to their environment die out or random mutations can have negative effects too - this wastefulness or bad design supports the idea that there is no design or designer
Evolution is a natural process that has no foresight, plan or purpose in mind, so we do not need to infer a designing mind (God) who planned the world
Weaknesses of evolution's challenges
It seems unlikely that the order, regularity and purpose in the world came about by chance - things in the world seem to be designed such as the eye for seeing, which looks like design, not chance
Modern teleological arguments incorporate evolution -
Tennant's anthropic principle
argues that God set up laws of physics that allowed the process of evolution, with the purpose of enabling human life to evolve - there is a designing mind behind the natural processes
Paley's example of a broken watch explains that even though there are elements of the world we might call bad design, it does not rule out that there is design
Tennant's aesthetic principle
asks why we have an appreciation of the arts, music and beauty in the world, it seems unnecessary to nature and survival - this could indicate a benevolent designer who has designed us or things in the world to give pleasure
The cosmological argument: Aquinas' first three ways
The Second Way: The uncaused causer
The second way explains how everything we observe (an effect) is caused by someone else - using Aristotle's idea of an 'efficient cause', Aquinas is talking about makers of objects (or situations)
Nothing can be its own efficient cause because it cannot have existed before itself
Things that are causes must themselves be caused, otherwise the effect would be taken away
We cannot regress infinitely because that would mean there was no first cause of everything and so all later effects and causes wouldn't have happened
Therefore there must be a first efficient cause that is not itself caused - God
The Third Way: Contingency and necessity
Aquinas argues that everything in the universe is contingent - it relies on something to have brought it into existence and also things to let it continue to exist
In nature, there are things that are possible 'to be' and 'not to be' (
contingent beings
)
These things could not always have existed because they must have not existed at some point, because they rely on something for their existence
If we trace this back, then we get to a point where nothing existed, but then nothing would have begun to exist as nothing can come from nothing
Therefore there must be a type of being that is not contingent - a
necessary being
Perhaps necessary beings could have their necessity come from another being
You cannot regress infinitely with necessary beings being given their necessity by other necessary beings
Therefore there must be a being that has of itself its own necessity (its existence can be explained only by itself) which causes other beings - this is God
The First Way: The unmoved mover
Inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas noticed that the ways in which things move or change must mean that something has made that motion take place
Everything is in a state of
actuality
and
potentiality
All things that are moved (the potentiality becomes the new actuality) are moved by someone else - things cannot just move themselves
The mover is itself moved by someone else, which is in turn moved by something else and then something else again
This process cannot go back infinitely because otherwise there would be no first mover and so nothing would have began moving at all
There must be a first mover - the first unmoved mover is God
Aquinas
- "What is moved is moved by another"
Strengths
As the first way states, we can observe motion and change in the universe eg the ball will not move unless I throw it - there has to be a series of movers, but it cannot go back to infinity
As the second way states, we can observe cause and effect in the world - there needs to be an uncaused first cause that began the chain of effects
As the third way states, we can observe things that are contingent and rely on other things to exist eg humans rely on air, water and food to exist, and without these would cease to exist
From observations, we can infer that there must be a first mover, causer and necessary being that we would call God
Aquinas seeks not only to explain how the universe exists but why
Weaknesses
It is just as reasonable to assume that there could be an infinite regress of movers/changers rather than an unmoved mover who started the chain of the movement
It is possible that what we understand to be cause and effect is more like a correlation than a cause, they may occur together, but we cannot be sure one caused the other - it is impossible to observe the cause of an effect such as the creation of the world
Aquinas makes a logical fallacy in his third way - just because things within the universe are contingent it does not mean the universe is also contingent - this is another version of the
fallacy of composition
The jump to the idea of God or a necessary being is another assumption - could the necessary being be something other than God, or a different type of God, eg a deist creator?
Existentialists would argue that asking 'why the universe exists' is an unanswerable question - so we should not even ask the question
Hume's criticisms
Hume questioned whether it is possible to make the jump from what Aquinas observed and the God that Christians believe in - the effect cannot immediately point towards a particular cause
Hume said that causation is a psychological concept and we cannot make links between cause and effect that is beyond our existence
He said that it is not necessary to suppose that everything has a cause at all, which rejects the whole approach of Aquinas
Hume argued that we cannot make the jump from the idea that just because everything in the universe has a cause or reason to exist then the entire universe must have a cause or reason to exist - this is the
fallacy of composition
- he said that just because you can explain the cause of each of a collection of twenty particles of matter, it doesn't mean that you can explain the cause of the group
Hume criticised Aquinas' third way and said that it is illogical to suppose that there is any being whose nature requires a contradiction - he disagreed that there can be a being that cannot not exist, because something that exists (by definition) could not exist
He argues why does it have to be a God that is necessary, why can't the universe be necessary?
Strengths of Hume's criticisms
Hume suggests that Aquinas is too reliant on inductive reasoning and the links between cause and effect are not certain - this challenges Aquinas' second way because if there is no chain of cause and effect, there is no need to argue for a first cause to start the chain of causes
We don't need to assume that everything needs a cause - this is Hume's
brute fact argument
- the universe just exists, there is no need to ask why -
Russell
later developed Hume's point by using quantum physics where atoms appear (an effect) without an apparent cause
Infinite regress does not have to be impossible as Aquinas claims - just because Aquinas finds it difficult to imagine, it does not mean that it is a factual impossibility -
Mackie
argues that a series of hooks could go on forever, each hook attached to the previous hook and so on
Weaknesses of Hume's criticisms
We collect observations from the past to make predictions about the future - although not certain, it is using empirical evidence, and is how we live
Anscombe
argues that as humans we always ask 'why?' or 'what caused it?', it is natural asking 'what is the cause of the universe?' is a valid question
Hume assumes that infinite regress is possible, but infinite regress is impossible to verify because it cannot be proved or disproved by observation