1.2A- Arguments Based on Observation Flashcards
(16 cards)
Arguments of observation
teleological: based on the apparent order of the universe
cosmological: which based themselves on some percieved general quality of the universe, such as cause and effect.
History of the teleological argument (NOT NEEDED SO IGNORE IF NOT GETTING)
Socrates: probably the 1st philosopher to put forward a formal argument from Design for the existence of gods.
St Paul: argues that God’s power and nature makes it obvious that the universe has been created so that even Godless and evil people should be able to see that it has been designed.
Aquinas’ teleological argument
Aquinas’ 5th way- The 5th way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things that lack knowledge, such as natural objects, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.
-Hence it is plain that they achieve their end by design and not by chance.
-It is clear that something that lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end unless it is directed towards that end by some being that has knowledge and intelligence, just as an arrow is fired towards it’s mark by the archer.
-Therefore, intelligeny being exists which directs all things towards their end. This being we call God.
-It is an Aposteriori argument (like all ABOO arguments as it relies on observation).
-focuses on purpose and regularity
-things act for a telos, or purpose
-Aquinas’ ‘intelligent being’ is God.
Evaluation of Aquinas’ teleological argument
Strengths:
-examples of non-thinking beings
-need an explanation for purpose
-sign of a conscious mind
Weaknesses:
-things that lack purposeful may be due to evolution
-objects may not have an innate purpose
-it may be a human construct.
Paley’s teleological (design) argument
-His arguement is the existence of an apparent order and purpose, that has been designed deliberately by a designer.
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perehaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be enquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had. before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this serve for the watch, as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissable in the sconed case as in the first? For this reason, and not other, viz., that, when we come to inspect the watch, we percieve (what we could not discover in the stone) that its serveal parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g.- that they are so formed and and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.
-We need a designer to create something and account that it exsits
-and also has a theory called ‘Paley and the eye’, which argues that evolution alone can’t do this, and that that person was good. His theory looks at how somethings in the eye takes a great deal to all come together and work.
Key facts about David Hume, relating to the teleological argument
-was seen as quite radical and against religion
- Was a key figure Scottish Enlightenment
-Published his criticism before Paley’s version
Hume’s evaluations of the teleological argument
-immediate appeal
-stated simply and includes clear logic
-seems self-evident
-argues you have to choose the correct analogy to get accross.
-Also, argues in favour for infinite regression, the only counter-argument to this is that it boils down to a ‘brute fact’.
Swinburne and Ockham’s razor (NOT NEEDED)
-argues laws of unvierse act according to simple principles
-Swinburne aruges that the simplest explanation would be that God planned it.
-William Ockham (4th Century) believed (that with 2+ competing theories, one with few hypotheses is most likely to be true), this is Ockham’s razor.
-Swinburne appeals this principle.
Criticisms
Micheal Palmer- Humans cannot know what is in God’s mind, so positioning God’s existence cannot be described as simple.
Ockham’s Razor- Swinbrune used it more likely there is a designer than not, However, this theory necessarily isn’t correct.
Problem of evil- Existence of evil in the world is a major objection to having God as the ultimate explanation.
Facts about the cosmological argument
-It is an aposteriori argument (like all ABOO arguments as it relies on observation).
-It features a series of arguments
-It infers the existence of God from facts about the world
-Was developed in Islamic theology, as well as used by early Christians
Aquinas’ cosmological argument as a whole
-all different versions of the cosmological arguement
-Aquinas based his assumptions on 2 things: The universe exists, and that there must be a reason why the universe exists
-The majority/ all would agree with the 1st reasoning, however, not all agree with the 2nd.
-Aquinas used this as a starting point that there must be an explanation of why everything exists as all.
Aquinas’ 1st way
-We see from observation that objects are in motion, but they cannot cause their own motion, therefore they must be an unmoved mover.
-Before they move, these objects have the potential to move, but are not actually in motion.
Aquinas’ 2nd way
-Aquinas is arguing that everything must have a cause.
Aquinas here argues that an infinite is impossible because if there was no first cause, there would be no subsequent cause and no effects in the present.
There must therefore, be a first Uncaused Cause and Aquinas calls this individual God.
Aquinas’ 3rd way
-Aquinas is arguing here that if we agree that everything in the universe is contingent, then we can see that nothing would be here at all.
Contingent things need something else to bring them into existence, so nothing would have ever started - there would still be nothing - unless there is some other being, capable of bringing other things into existence but being independent of everything else, or ‘necessary’.
It would have to be a being that is not caused, and that depends on nothing else to continue to exist -and this, Aquinas thought, would be God.
F.R. Coppleston’s solutions to Aquinas’ 1st and 2nd way (NOT NEEDED)
-argued that there was 2 ways to understand them: temporarially first cause, and the ontologically ‘ultimate’ cause
-in feiri: one that arises as an effect to become what it is
-in esse: causes that sustain being of existence of the effect
Hume’s Cosmological argument
-believed the idea of cause and effect are different, supported by recent science, Quantum theory says particles can pop into existence from a vaccum without a cause.
-Was a strict empirist, believes we gain knowledge through observation, we cannot observe causation.
-If 2 events occur, they are distinct, humans made the link.
-Hume challenges the assertion that God is a special case.
Criticisms of Hume’s Cosmological argument and his responses
Criticisms:
-Anscombe argues that as humans we ask ‘why?’ or ‘what caused it?’
-Hume assumes that infinte regress is possible, however, it is impossible to verify.
Responses:
-causation is obviously an empirical fact about the world, all science and human interaction with the world seems to be premised on notion.
-we know cause based on habit: if this isn’t the case, Hume’s argument collapses.
Further criticisms:
-Coppleston argues just because we think something can happen without a cause, doesn’t mean it will actually happen.
