Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The teleological approach - Coggle Diagram
The teleological approach
Aquinas' 5th way
When we observe natural beings, we see that they do not behave randomly. Their behaviour is goal drected
Flowers look to the sun, Birds fly south in winter, Water cycle
Natural beings are not sufficiently intelligent to direct their own behaviour
Since their behaviour is goal directed, there must be some intelligent being which is responsible for setting that goal
Aquinas points out that our human minds can direct an object's behaviour through exerting force on it, similar to an archer does with an arrow
The arrow hits a target even though it lacks the intelligence to do so, therefore there must've been an archer
God is the archer
These are all guided by Telos
Paley's watch
A watch's purpose depends entirely upon the exact structure of the parts and their precise arrangements. Purpose enabled by complexity.
This purpose we see in the natural world
Fish's eye
Wings of a bird
Therefore nature must have a designer
So it is the combination of complexity with its enabling of a purpose that indicates design by a mind.
Issues of analogy
Swinburne argues that analogical argumentation is scientifically valid
If a scientist does not know the cause of x, but they know x is similar to y then they can interpret that the cause of x is similar to the cause of y
Hume HATES HARD
There can be contradictory cause through similar effect
Such as dry ice and fire both producing smoke
This is weak against probability over analogy though
Paley discusses the watch as being a metaphor for the probability
Artefacts and natural beings have a very leak wink. Can we generalise a watch to existence?
Hater Hume
Hume argues that even if this argument runs, it doesn't prove the existence of Christian god
Junior God
God is dead
Pantheon
IT'S A LIMITED EXPLANATION
Occam's Razor - one God is simpler than multiple
Hume overreaches on this argument, only arguing against natural theology
Hume & Darwin
A perfect God would not design an evil world
Hume’s evidential problem of evil makes a similar point. Excessive and dysteleological suffering could have been avoided if nature were designed differently.
God cannot remove evil without removing some greater good necessarily connected to evil
Darwin
Evolution also explains the complexity and purpose of organisms
Variation in species indicates this
Dawkins wrote ‘the blind watchmaker’ referencing Paley. Taking Paley’s example of the eye, Dawkins explains how it could have evolved part by part over hundreds of millions of years.
So yes there is a watchmaker, but it is ‘blind’, meaning merely the blind mechanical force of natural selection.
God designed evolution, everything about the earth itself is too perfect to be ignored
we have found OTHER earth like planets tho
Swinburne
Evolution cannot explain natural laws, the existence of these laws requires explanation
For example, the laws of physics. If they were ever so slightly different we may struggle to survive
Or the charge of an electron
Science explains what the laws are, but not why they have come about
Multiversin' hatin'
The multiverse theory undermines all versions of the design argument. It claims our universe is just one of an infinite number of every possible type of universe. All possible permutations of the laws of nature would be represented.
So, whatever spatial or temporal order a design argument might point to can be explained by every type of universe existing in the multiverse.
A special explanation like God is unnecessary.
Swinburne attempted to respond that there’s no scientific evidence for the multiverse theory.
However, the fact that the multiverse theory could be true means that we no longer must accept Swinburne’s conclusion that a God is the only reasonable explanation of our universe.