Arguments based on observation Flashcards
A priori
relating to or denoting reasoning or
knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.
A posteriori
relating to or denoting reasoning or
knowledge which proceeds from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes.
Inductive
the premises support but do not entail the conclusion – probable not a philosophical proof
Synthetic
the argument is not true or false by the definition of its premises – it has to be tested.
Analogical
makes a comparison between two things for the purpose of explanation/clarification
Aquinas’ Fifth way
“Everything operates as to a design. This design is from God.” In Summa Theologiae he links causation to purpose. Causation gives things their perfections,
Teleological
To do with something’s purpose, goal or end point
Teleological argument
Argument by design from Aquinas’ fifth way
Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle, believed that all things have a purpose. But we cannot achieve this purpose without something to make it happen - some sort of guide which is God.
Paley’s regularity
Paley observed complex objects work with regularity.
This order seems to be the result of a designer who has put this regularity and order into place deliberately
Paley’s purpose
The way things work seems to have been put together deliberately and with a purpose
E.g the eye has deliberately been designed with the purpose to see
This purpose and design is evidence of a creator God.
Analogy of the watch
Walking in a heath
If you came across a rock, you could explain its origins by referring to natural sources.
If you come across a watch, there couldn’t be a natural explanation
The watch is made of cogs and springs and this design couldn’t have come about by chance
Therefore 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
Analogy of the arrow and the archer
An arrow, an unintelligent object, cannot achieve its end goal, of hitting the target without something intelligent guiding it. Therefore, the archer (the intelligent being) has to direct the arrow to fulfil its end goal of hitting the target.
Cosmological Argument
Begins with observations about how the universe works and from this tries to explain why it exists.
Aquinas’ First Way
The unmoved mover
Everything is in a state of actuality and potentiality
All things that are moved are moved by something else
The mover is itself moved by something else etc
This cannot go on infinitely
So there must be a first unmoved mover
Aquinas’ Second Way
The uncaused causer
Nothing can be its own efficient cause because it cannot exist before itself
Things that are causes must also have causes
This chain cannot go on infinitely
There must be a first efficient cause that is not itself caused
Therefore there must be an uncaused causer
Aquinas’ Third Way
In nature there are contingent beings (possible to and not to be)
These things can not always have existed because they rely on something else for their existence
We can trace back to a point nothing existed but then nothing could have began to exist
Therefore there must be a necessary being (its existence can be explained by itself alone) - God
Hume’s criticism of Teleological argument
Challenges analogies - the world may not work like a watch. It might be true that the watch looks designed, but it is harder to ascribe these characteristics to the world.
Uses the epicurean hypothesis - 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 which could be the world we live in today. Thus, randomness explains the universe, not a designer.
Hume’s criticisms of Cosmological Argument
Hume questioned whether it is possible to jump from what Aquinas observed in the world to the Christian God he believed in. He said that causation is a psychological concept and we cannot make links between cause and effect that is beyond our experience
Fallacy of composition by saying the entire universe must have a cause because things that make it do
Criticisms of Hume
Just because we cannot fully understand God, why should the logic of the arguments be dismissed?
It is reasonable to look for total explanations of all events
Modern science suggest that there is a definite beginning to the universe
We need faith to make the jump to understand God
Just because we do not have experience of something does not mean our current understanding cannot explain it
Challenge of Evolution
Challenge to Teleological argument
Evolution by natural selection - things exist as they are because of natural methods, selecting what will survive and what won’t.
There is no need for a designer
‘In the case of living machinery, the ‘designer’ is unconscious natural selection, the blind watchmaker’ - Richard Dawkins
Strengths of arguments based on observation
Begins with things we can see
No definitions that we must accept
Makes sense to most people that someone/thing started it
Science says the universe has a beginning
Weaknesses of arguments based on observation
Russell: maybe the universe just is. shut up.
Maybe it has always been here
No logical issue with things existing without a cause
Hume said only analytic propositions can exist necessarily
Logical fallacy
An error in logic
