theme 1C challenges to inductive arguments

Question 1

intro - challenges to inductive arguments

Answer 1

• both the cosmological argument and the teleological argument can be criticised philosophically and scientifically
• inductive arguments are aposteriori arguments that reach probable conclusions for the existence of God, based on inductive proofs
• they use inductive reasoning and empirical evidence to reach these probabilities, both of which are based on experience

Question 2

P1 Hume’s criticisms of the cosmological argument

Answer 2

• rejected the idea of a necessary being
• argued that even if there was such a being, it doesn’t mean that this being is God
• why should the first mover / cause be the God of classical theism?
• the argument begins with something that is within our experience, the universe, and reaches conclusions about things that are outside of our experience, God
• why do we need to find a cause for the whole chain if we can explain each item in the chain? (the fallacy of composition)

Question 3

P2 Hume’s criticisms of the teleological argument

Answer 3

• the argument makes elite from saying there is a designer to saying the designer is God
• the universe is unique, therefore we have no basis for inferring that there is anything like a human designer behind it:
  he uses the example of seeing a house to illustrate this criticism, we conclude that it had an architect because we have experienced it, but the universe is not like a house so we cannot with the same certainty say that the universe had an architect, so this analogy is imperfect
• if there is a designer, what explanation do we have for the designer? why only one God? could it be a team of God’s?
• the order in the universe might be a result of chance
• criticises Paleys analogy for being unsound, humanity and nature is organic and dissimilar to a machine which is mechanical
• there are signs of bad design such as suffering and natural disasters
• design is only apparent, there may be no evidence of intention

Question 4

P3 alternative scientific explanations of the cosmological argument

Answer 4

• the Big Bang theory, there was a singularity 13.7 billion years ago which inflated, expanded and cooled to give us the universe
• the string theory that there is more than one universe, states that universe can begin and end, but the Multiverse is infinite
• both theories remove the need for a God of classical theism, as there is empirical evidence to prove that it is possible that a random singularity or an infinite Multiverse is the reason for our existence

Question 5

P4 alternative scientific explanations of the teleological argument

Answer 5

• Darwin propose that random chance organises life in the universe according to the principles of evolution and natural selection
• Dawkins uses Darwin’s theory to argue that evolution gives the impression of design
• an example of this would be survival of the fittest, where the strongest of species survive and pass on the necessary survival gene to their offspring, for example, giraffes evolving to have long necks
• although there is evidence of cause and design, there is no empirical evidence for God
• both arguments are guilty of arguing for a God of the gaps, what we cannot explain we say is God

Question 6

the challenges from Hume and science are successful in improving the inductive arguments fail

Answer 6

• Hume successfully demonstrate that there is not enough empirical evidence to support the arguments, he is an empiricist so must see physical proof that God designed the universe in order for it to be true
• the arguments are based on analogies and not actual conclusive proof, so at best they say God is a probable / possible explanation for the universe
• Hume argues that design is only apparent, there is no evidence of intention, complexity, regularity, order on purpose could easily be a coincidence rather than the intention of a divine creator
• the challenges from science are effective, people today require more empirical evidence as there is a great deal for the various scientific theories
• both arguments are guilty of creating a God of the gaps, the explain things which cannot otherwise be explained, as our scientific understanding develops the need for God to explain things is becoming less and less
• both argument to make a leap from a designer or first cause to God, as a prosteriori they only reach probable conclusions and other conclusions may be considered far more plausible and convincing
• both arguments are only based on observation of empirical evidence eg CROP
• Flew’s leaky bucket counters Swinburne cumulative case

Question 7

the challenges from Hume and science are not successful in improving the inductive arguments fail

Answer 7

• scientific theories are not always correct, new scientific discoveries sometime disprove theories, for example, string / Multiverse theory may replace our work alongside the Big Bang theory
• there are many contemporary Christian scientists who believe that one can be both a scientist and a religious believer eg Polkinghorn
• cumulative case, although the individual challenges are significant, when the various arguments and other evidence to support God’s existence are put together, the case for God is stronger
• Okham’s razor, scientific theories still leave unanswered questions, if God is the answer then all questions are answered, Hume’s challenges and others remain unsatisfactory