Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

a level philosophy > Arguments From Observation > Flashcards

Arguments From Observation Flashcards

1
Q

Paley’s argument for regularity

A
  • observation of objects that experience regularity
  • Example - seasons, gravity
  • examples such as the relationship between the planets, the regular rotations and the predictable effects of gravity
  • these could not have come about without a designer
  • there must be a calculating being who purposefully created the universe according to a well constructed plan
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Paley’s argument for purpose

A
  • things were put together deliberately with a purpose
  • example - eye to see, wing to fly
  • this points to a designer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Paley’s analogy of the watch

A
  • the designer couldn’t have made it by change
  • the world is more complex therefore there must be a creator
  • arguments use understanding of machines to conclude that the world must be a machine
  • you can see the telos of a watch like you can see the telos of the universe
  • pointed out that a watch doesn’t need to fully be understood or working and that the world is more complex than a watch
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Aquinas teleological argument

A
  • way 5
  • we cannot achieve purpose without something to make it happen
  • example of an archer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Aquinas argument from the governance of the world

A
  • things that lack knowledge act for a purpose
  • acting for an end leads to the best result
  • happens not by luck but by designer
  • anything that lacks knowledge needs something to guide it
  • there is an intelligent being that directs things to their end
  • this is God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Aquinas argument from analogy

A
  • Archer and arrow
  • in the same way an archer guides an arrow, God guides natural bodies to where they are meant to go
  • natural body needs purpose just like the arrow needs to go to its target
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Strengths of the teleological argument

A
  • examples in nature of non-thinking beings that act to achieve purpose
  • correct that an arrow needs an archer in the same way it is reasonable to assume that all natural things are directed towards a purpose
  • aquinas is the right that weekend an explanation for purpose - God works
  • Swinburne - God is the simplest explanation of design in the universe
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Teleological weaknesses

A
  • could be another explanation for apparent purpose, they have evolved to suit environment
  • assumption about purpose, what is purpose could be chance
  • Aquinas is accused of a logically fallacy - a leap to the God of classic theism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Hume criticism of the teleological argument

A
  • Not necessarily true that the world is like a watch
  • true that a watch looks as it its designed but hard to say the same of the world with these characteristics
  • it is more like veg with characteristics of intricacy
  • epicurean hypothesis
  • our world is finite and imperfect why is God infinite and perfect
  • trial and error
  • first rued attempt
  • number of designers
  • immoral designer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Aquinas way 1

A
  • unmoved mover
  • things move from actuality to potentiality
  • nothing can move by itself
  • cannot be an infinite regress of movers
  • must be an unmoved mover
  • this is God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Aquinas way 2

A
  • uncaused causer
  • everything is as a result of causes
  • nothing can be its own cause
  • cannot be infinite regress of causes
  • must be uncaused causer
  • God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Aquinas way 3

A
  • contingency and necessity
  • everything in the universe is contingent
  • must have been a time of nothing
  • must be a necessary being that brought it into existence
  • this is God
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Hume criticism of cosmological

A
  • inductive reasoning leads to probable conclusions, we can only observe a limited amount and should not make the assumption that cause and effect apply to anything outside of our experience
  • fallacy of composition - cannot make a jump that because everything in the universe has a cause the universe as a whole has a cause
  • what is the cause of God (special case for God)? Could the universe not be necessary, there is no need for it to be contingent
  • why not accept infinite regress, why does it have to be impossible
  • even if we accept the universe has a cause, this does not have to be a God of classical theism, it could be a different type of god or being - another leap in logic
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Cosmological strengths

A
  • way 1 = we can observe motion and change
  • way 2 = we can see cause and effect
  • way 3 = we can observe contingent things that rely on other things to exist
  • observation - we can infer that there is a first mover, causer and necessary.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Cosmological weaknesses

A
  • it is just as reasonable to assume that there could be infinite regress
  • possible that what we understand to be cause and effect is correlation
  • leap in logic - doesn’t mean that the universe is contingent
  • jump to the idea that God is the necessary
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Logical fallacies

A
  • assumption that all things are moved, have a cause or purpose, are contingent
  • infinite regression - things can go back infinitely but doesn’t explain why it was there in the first place
  • jump to transcendent creation - jump to far (Aquinas pointing to aspects not proving)
  • special case of God, not clear why God has to be a special case
  • regularity and order - could have come about by chance
17
Q

Evolution

A
  • challenges the teleological argument
  • alternative explanation to how the world exists
  • no need for a designer if evolution is accepted
18
Q

Believers and evolution

A
  • believers feel that evolution works alongside belief in God
  • tool that God used to make things the way they are
19
Q

Tenant - Anthropic principle

A
  • modern teleological argument
  • there is too much that has gone right for it to have come about by chance
  • this world is finely balanced to allow life to exist - the favourable conditions suggest a designer
20
Q

Tenant - Aesthetic principle

A
  • modern teleological argument
  • humans appreciate music, art and beauty which have no survival value - this implies a benevolent designer
  • the ability to recognise beauty has not come about by evolution
21
Q

Dawkins

A

‘Life is byte and bytes of digital information’

  • cosmological argument criticism
  • the ‘blind watchmaker’ - the process is blind, there is no overall purpose, evolution is carried on through random but cumulative mutations in DNA which produce variations in living organisms
22
Q

Morowitz - counter chance

A
  • he looked at the probability for the existence of life in the universe
  • concluded - the universe would have to be trillions of times older and larger for a protein molecule to have occurred by chance
  • the chances of a protein molecule occurring by chance is 1:10^236
23
Q

Hoyle - counter chance

A
  • the probability of life originating by chance is as likely as a hurricane raging through a junk yard and producing a Boeing 747
24
Q

Swinburne - counter chance

A
  • maybe only if order is there can we know that there is order, but it is still extraordinary and needs an explanation
  • God is a better ultimate explanation than the brute fact of the universe
25
Q

Paley’s response to potential criticism

A
  • even if we had never seen a watch before, we would still infer a designer (just as we have not seen God in the world)
  • even if a watch did not work perfectly (just as there are faults in our world) there is still evidence of some desitgn
26
Q

Examples

A
  • Mackie - infinite hooks
  • Leibniz - series of book copied from a pervious book
  • inuits in new york
27
Q

Leibniz - For CA

A
  • Can’t be infinite regress
  • even if it is possible it is not a full response for something happening
  • principle of sufficient reason
  • example of a series of books, each manuscript being copied from the previous one - there is no explanation for the series as a whole
28
Q

Copleston - for CA

A
  • everything in the universe is contingent
  • universe is a sum of contingent things
  • the universe itself is contingent
  • this must be self-explanatory, necessary being
  • this gives a full and sufficient reason for existence of the universe
29
Q

Russell - against CA

A
  • the universe requires no explanation
  • every man who exists has a mother therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother - that’s a different logical sphere
  • the universe may have reached this point in its existence because of a whole series of causes but this does not mean that there has to be one great cause behind it all
  • uses Hume’s ‘brute fact’ argument - the universe Just is and that’s a fact that needs no further explanation we do not need to question why
30
Q

Mackie - against CA

A
  • why couldn’t we imagine infinite regress

- leap in logic

31
Q

Kant - against CA

A
  • causality is just the way our minds like to see the world
  • we impose the idea of cause and effect onto the world, the noumenal world can’t be experienced by the senses
  • if there is no causality, the Aquinas’ way 2 does not make sense - there can be no first or uncaused causer
32
Q

Goldilocks principle

A

the earth is just the right distance from the sun for life to evolve

33
Q

strengths of a priori

A
  • rely only on reason and logic - so are not deceived by the senses
  • the premises lead to a certain conclusion
  • concepts can be defined a priori and do not rely on empirical evidence that can be interpreted in different ways
34
Q

strengths of a posteriori

A
  • it relies on empiricism, sense and observation which everyone can experience and verify
  • the evidence leads to a probable conclusion
  • arguing from what is known, to what is unknown
35
Q

weaknesses of a priori

A
  • based on human definitions - we can define a triangle because we have seen it; how can an unknowable metaphysical being be defined
  • it may only be possible to know a priori definition, not whether these things exist in reality
  • if we deny the premises are valid the conclusion cannot be valid (KANT)
36
Q

weaknesses of a posteriori

A
  • the same evidence is available to all BUT it can lead to different conclusions (wisdom parable)
  • limitations of the senses - only true for today, cannot get outside of our perception to check if it is correct (KANT)
37
Q

EXTRA: ontological logical fallacies

A
  • assumption: existence is a predicate and analytic, existence is not synthetic
  • God is the greatest conceivable being or supremely perfect being, logically necessary

a level philosophy (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions