Revision Guide PDF

Types of reasoning ================== - - - - - 1. 2. 3. ALL DESIGN ARGUMENTS ARE A POSTERIORI, INDUCTIVE AND SYNTHETIC! ### Interpreting experience: - - - These are all naturally-occurring illusions: - *The \"Fata Morgana\" is a mirage that occurs in the sea between...

Types of reasoning ================== - - - - - 1. 2. 3. ALL DESIGN ARGUMENTS ARE A POSTERIORI, INDUCTIVE AND SYNTHETIC! ### Interpreting experience: - - - These are all naturally-occurring illusions: - *The \"Fata Morgana\" is a mirage that occurs in the sea between Sicilly and Italy. Ships and mountains seem to float in the air above the horizon.* - - his was an important idea for the liberal Christian philosopher [**[John Hick]**](https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/john-hick.html) *(Faith & Knowledge*, 1957): - 'THE UNIVERSE IS RELIGIOUSLY AMBIGUOUS. IT EVOKES AND SUSTAINS NON-RELIGIOUS AS WELL AS RELIGIOUS RESPONSES' **- JOHN HICK** - The idea that the universe is \"religiously ambiguous\" means that both believers and non-believers may be drawing valid conclusions from the Design Argument because it all boils down to how you interpret your experiences: some people experience design, others don\'t. In some people, the universe \"evokes\" a religious response - they are struck by the appearance of design and order. It may \"sustain\" a religious response, reassuring them of God\'s existence even when they are faced with evil and suffering. But non-believers perceive* the same events* completely differently. This sort of thinking goes back to the philosopher **Immanuel Kant** who proposed a difference between the Noumenon and Phenomenon: **Noumenal reality** (or the Noumenon) is reality as-it-really-is. Kant thinks that no one ever gets to experience this directly. - **Phenomenal reality** is reality as it comes to us through our senses and as we construct it in our minds. Each individual person\'s phenomenal reality is probably slightly different from everyone else\'s. - The Design Argument - along with all other *a posteriori* argument - tells us about phenomenal reality. God (if he exists) is the noumenal reality. - [[John Hick]](https://philosophydungeon.weebly.com/john-hick.html) puts it like this: 'THE SAME THING APPEARS IN EITHER SLIGHTLY OR CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT WAYS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE OWING BOTH TO THEIR VARYING SPATIAL LOCATIONS IN RELATION TO IT AND TO DIFFERENCES IN THEIR SENSORY AND MENTAL EQUIPMENT AND INTERPRETIVE HABITS' **- JOHN HICK** William Paley's Design Argument's: ================================== - - - **Key Idea**: The idea here is that **everything that serves a specific function in nature**---like wings for flying or the heart for pumping blood---must have been created with that purpose in mind, much like a tool designed for a specific task. This points to intentionality and design. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ### 1. The Watchmaker Analogy: 1. Paley famously begins by asking us to imagine finding a watch while walking in a field. The watch, with its intricate and interdependent parts working together for a purpose (to tell time), could not have come together by accident. Its complexity implies the existence of a designer---someone who constructed the watch with a specific purpose in mind. For example,the watch uses brass To prevent rust, steel for elasticity and glass for visibility. These materials were chosen for their unique qualities which are fit for purpose. Thus, it reveal intentionality and forethought- a designer is required. ### **2. Comparison to Nature:** Paley then compares this to natural objects, particularly biological organisms. For instance, he points to the human eye, which has various complex parts (the cornea, lens, retina, etc.) working together perfectly to allow vision. Just like the watch, the eye's complexity and functionality suggest that it was designed for a purpose and didn't come about by chance. ### **3. Inference of a Designer (God):** From this analogy, Paley concludes that the complexity and apparent design in nature (e.g., living organisms) indicate the presence of a designer, who must be incredibly intelligent and powerful. For Paley, this designer is God. He argues that just as the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker, the existence of the universe and life implies a divine creator. ### **4. Rejection of Chance:** Paley argues that the complexity and purpose found in nature are too great to be the result of random processes or chance. He suggests That the fine-tuning of the universe further supports the idea that the world is the result of intelligent design rather than coincidence. ### ### Strengths of William Paley's argument from design qua purpose: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 'Ockham\'s Razor' is a philosophical test named after a mediaeval monk William of Ockahm. It's like a razor because it 'shaves away' the rubbish, leaving only the truth behind. It's also called the principle of parsimony which is an idea that goes back to Aristotle. Ockahm's Razor is often stated like this: entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. - - 2. **[Design Qua Regularity:]** ------------------------------------------- This emphasises the order and predictability of natural laws and systems, suggesting that the universe operates according to a design plan. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Design qua Regularity** refers to the observable regularity and order in the natural world, particularly in the laws of nature. This concept focuses on the consistent, predictable patterns in nature that suggest that the universe operates according to certain laws and principles. Paley argues that this regularity is evidence of design because it indicates that the universe is organised and governed by an intelligent designer. - - Here's a more logically ordered version, including Aquinas\' analogy of the archer: Aquinas\' Design Argument: Key Aspects and Concepts =================================================== - 1. \- Aquinas believed that faith and reason coexist and complement each other. His design argument uses rational thought to argue for the existence of God, aligning philosophical reasoning with theological faith. 2. \- Aquinas' design argument is classified as a teleological argument, meaning it focuses on the purpose (telos) or end goals of things in the universe. \- He observed that even non-conscious objects in nature seem to act toward specific ends or purposes, such as plants growing or animals reproducing. This suggests that these natural beings are directed toward their goals by some guiding force. 3. \- Aquinas emphasised the idea of final cause, one of Aristotle's four causes, which refers to the purpose or goal of an object or action. \- He argued that everything in nature has a purpose, such as an acorn\'s goal of becoming an oak tree. This purposeful direction implies the existence of an intelligent designer who set those purposes in motion. 4. \- Aquinas identified this guiding intelligence behind natural objects\' purposeful actions as God. He argued that since these objects do not possess intelligence to guide themselves, there must be an external, intelligent cause directing them toward their ends. \- For Aquinas, God is the ultimate designer who created the universe with a specific plan and purpose. 5. \- Aquinas focused on the order and regularity in nature, particularly the predictable behaviour of natural laws and systems. \- He noted that the movement of celestial bodies (planets, sun etc) and other natural phenomena operate according to fixed patterns, suggesting that these regularities are part of a divine design plan. 6. \- Aquinas used the analogy of an archer and an arrow to explain his design argument. Just as an arrow, which lacks consciousness, needs an archer to direct it toward a target with precision and purpose, natural objects require a guiding intelligence (God) to direct them toward their specific ends. \- This analogy illustrates that, like an arrow following a deliberate and ordered path toward its goal, objects in nature achieve their telos through intentional guidance from an intelligent being, rather than by random chance. \- This analogy illustrates design qua regularity, which emphasises the order and predictability of natural laws. Like the arrow following a deliberate and ordered path toward its goal, objects in nature achieve their telos (purpose) through the regular, consistent operation of natural laws---directed by an intelligent being---rather than by random chance. The regularity in nature, such as the predictable movement of celestial bodies (stars, planets etc.) , points to a purposeful design 7. \- Aquinas rejected the idea that the complexity and order in nature could arise by chance. He argued that the directedness observed in nature is too intricate to be the result of random occurrences, implying the need for an intelligent designer. ### Strengths of Aquinas' argument 1. The analogy does not require people to know exactly what the purpose of the world is- we don't need to know exactly where the arrow is going in order to know that there is an archer. 2. An inanimate world must indeed have something guiding it, if it is to exhibit order and purpose. 3. The analogy of effect and the analogy of cause are clear. The appearance of direction in the arrow and nature can suggest that both may have a director 4. 5. 6. David Hume's argument from analogy ================================== - - - Scholars who critique the design argument: ========================================== ### David Hume - - - - - ### J.S Mill **Problem of Evil and Suffering**: Mill argued that the existence of suffering, pain, and natural disasters in the world is incompatible with the idea of THE CLASSICAL GOD OF THEISM. If a benevolent God designed the world, Mill questioned why there would be so much suffering, both moral (caused by human actions) and natural (caused by natural forces like earthquakes or diseases). Mill pointed out that nature is often brutal, with animals and humans suffering greatly, suggesting that the world is not designed with benevolence in mind. **Imperfect Design**: Mill critiqued the design argument by pointing out that the world is full of flaws and imperfections. He questioned how a perfectly wise and powerful creator could have created a world that has so much imperfection, both in the natural world (e.g., natural disasters, disease) and in human nature (e.g., moral failings, ignorance). The imperfect nature of the world does not align with the traditional view of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent designer. **Natural Law as a Better Explanation**: Like Hume, Mill thought that natural laws provided a better explanation for the apparent order and complexity of the universe than divine design. Mill argued that what we perceive as design could be the result of natural causes and that there is no necessity to posit a supernatural designer to explain the order of nature. ### Darwin (scientific) **Natural Selection Over Design**: Darwin argued that the complexity and adaptation of organisms could be explained by natural selection, a blind, undirected process, rather than by an intelligent designer. Traits that aid survival are passed down over generations, leading to the appearance of design without the need for divine intervention. **Imperfections in Nature**: Darwin pointed out that many organisms have flawed or inefficient features, which would be unlikely if they were designed by a perfect creator. These imperfections make more sense in the context of evolution, where traits develop based on survival, not ideal design. **Cruelty in Nature**: Darwin noted the brutality of nature, including predation and suffering, which conflicts with the idea of a benevolent designer. Natural selection, which involves competition and death, offers a more fitting explanation for this cruelty than a purposeful, kind creator. **[Validity]** Darwin\'s criticism of the design argument is valid because his theory of evolution by natural selection provides a natural explanation for the complexity and adaptation of life, removing the need for a divine designer. Evolution shows that complex traits can arise gradually through random variation and survival of the fittest, without intentional design. Additionally, the presence of imperfections and cruelty in nature (like suffering and predation) aligns better with evolution\'s blind process than with the idea of a benevolent, purposeful creator. This scientific explanation undermines the necessity of the design argument. However, it does not undermine the argument from design qua regularity because If evolution happens in a consistent and predictable way, it might seem like this process was planned. If the process of evolution (how life changes over time) is regular and predictable, this regularity can be seen as evidence of a designed system. So, the consistent patterns we see in evolution might suggest that the universe is designed to produce intelligent life. It also cannot be used as a criticism for the strong and weak anthropic principles. ### Dawkins (scientific) **Evolution as an Explanation**: Dawkins argues that Darwinian evolution by natural selection provides a far better explanation for the complexity and apparent design of life than a divine designer. Evolution explains how simple organisms gradually develop into complex beings through small, cumulative changes, without the need for a supernatural creator. **Dawkins adoption of Ockham's razor**: Dawkins contends that if the universe\'s complexity requires a designer, then the designer itself must be even more complex and, therefore, would also require an explanation. This leads to an infinite regress of designers, which Dawkins sees as logically problematic. He asserts that invoking a designer only shifts the problem without solving it. **[Validity]** - ### ### Ernst Haeckel - - - - - F.R Tennant's Design Argument (Modern) ====================================== - ### The Strong Anthropic Principle - - **Weaknesses of the Strong Anthropic Principle**[: ] - - - ### The Weak Anthropic Principle: - It is surprising that the universe should be biophilic (life-friendly).\ \ In 1999, the Astronomer Royal, **Martin Rees**, published *Just Six Numbers*, in which he demonstrates that 6 scientific \"constants\" make the universe biophilic. If any of them were even slightly different, the universe would be a very different place: no stars, no planets, no life. These numbers are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. *Don\'t worry. It\'s not an astronomy exam. You don\'t have to understand these constants or even remember them - but knowing one of them as an example improves your argument. [[Click here for more examples of fine-tuning.]](http://biologos.org/common-questions/gods-relationship-to-creation/fine-tuning)* - - - - - ### The Aesthetic Principle: - - **Weaknesses of the Aesthetic Argument:** - - Richard Swinburne ================= ### Regularities - - - - - - - ### Argument from probability - - - - - - ### The Design Argument is cumulative - - - - - - - - Alternative interpretations: Deism ================================== - **Ways the biblical God is different from the Designer that that the Teleological argument points towards:** - - - - - - **Why this matters:** - - - **Deism:** - - - - -