As-Level Philosophy: The Teleological Argument

Front 1

What is 'The Teleological Argument' and describe its history.

(Definition and introduction, 4 bullet points)

Back 1

-Argues that the world and its features of design are evidence of a God.

-'Teleological' is derived from the Greek word 'telos' meaning 'purpose' or 'order'

-Dates back to Socrates with his eyelid analogy and Cicero with his Sundial analogy .

-It is inductive (valid premises make conclusion more likely to be true) and a posteriori (based on evidence).

Front 2

Outline William Paley's Watchmaker Analogy.

(context; 2 key features, explain why first one is important)

Back 2

-Context: The most famous is by theologian William Paley in his work Natural Theology (1802) in which he uses the natural light of reason as opposed to religious texts to provide evidence for the existence of a God.

-Key feature 1: Uses analogy of finding a watch on a heath. We would intuitively think it had been designed as it is complex, shows order and has a purpose. The use of analogy is important as it uses something within our knowledge to help explain that which is beyond our knowledge.

-Key feature 2: Design qua purpose & Design Qua Regularity: He now relates aspects/evidence of the world to the watch, in particular the human eye: Has design qua purpose (to see); design qua regularity (behaves in a regular manner) . This is important as it allows Paley to argue that the world is evidence of a world-maker (a Deity) like the watch is evidence of a watchmaker.

Front 3

Outline F.R. Tennant's Anthropic Argument

(context; 1 key feature, explain why it is important)

Back 3

-Context: F.R. Tennant, in his work Philosophical Theology (1928), updated the Teleological argument to make it more compatible with contemporary scientific understanding.

-Key Feature: The argument is based on the Anthropic Principle which states that life can only exist in a universe if specific conditions are met (in a universe fine-tuned for life). Fred Hoyle and Marin Reese have proposed some of these conditions.

Tennant then argues that life does exist and thus the universe must be fine-tuned for life. He also argues that it is very unlikely that the existence of a fine-tuned Universe is the result of mere chance.

This is important as it allows Tennant to argue that it is more likely that God designed the Universe.

Front 4

The observations of astronomer Fred Hoyle and astrophysicist Martin Rees that are used as evidence in Tennant's Anthropic Argument.

Back 4

-Astronomer Fred Hoyle said there are 20 different proteins needed for life and the probability of at least one existing is extremely unlikely.

-Astrophysicist Martin Rees said that if gravity were any stronger or weaker, there would not be enough hydrogen for life.

Front 5

Outline Michael Behe's Argument from Irreducible Complexity.

(context; 1 key feature)

Back 5

-Context: A controversial version of the Teleological Argument by the biochemist Michael Behe in his work Darwin's Black box (1998).

-Key feature: Begins by stating the difference between cumulatively complex and irreducibly complex systems.

Behe argued that irreducibly complex systems could only be the work of an intelligent designer and not evolution. This is because all the parts of it are needed for it to function at all.

Furthermore, He goes on to argue that there are human body parts which seem to be irreducibly complex as well as bacterial flagellum.

Front 6

Define Cumulatively complex systems and Irreducibly complex systems. (give examples)

Back 6

Cumulatively complex systems: Those which can evolve over time and maintain their function when some parts are removed, (for example, a city).

Irreducibly complex systems: Those which no longer work if a part of it were removed (for example, a mouse trap).

Front 7

The work "Natural Theology": who is it by and what was the date of publication?

Back 7

-William Paley

-1802

Front 8

The work "Philosophical Theology": who is it by and what was the date of publication?

Back 8

-F.R. Tennant

-1928

Front 9

The work "Darwin's Black Box": who is it by and what was the date of publication?

Back 9

-Michael Behe

-1998

Front 10

Strength/Attractions of Paley's Watchmaker Analogy argument.

(2 bullet points)

OR just turn key features into strengths

Back 10

Strength: The Use of an analogy which is also philosophically sound (allows us to understand his argument by comparing that which is beyond out knowledge with that which is within our knowledge).

[Optional]-The analogy appears to be philosophically sound as Richard Swinburne argued. This is because there are, in fact similarities between complex objects and the world

-The world also follows rules such as laws of nature which shows it has order.

Front 11

Strength/Attractions of Tennant's Anthropic argument.

Back 11

-Tennant's argument is compatible with our contemporary scientific understanding (e.g. evolution) and can be supported by scientific evidence for example:

Physicist Paul Davies calculated that the probability of a fine-tuned universe existing is 1 in 10,000,000,000^123 (one in ten billion to-the-power-of 123).

Front 12

Strength/Attractions of the teleological arguments as a whole: Why is it intuitively persuasive?

Back 12

There is something intuitively persuasive about the arguments:

-People feel the world is too coincidental to be the result of mere chance.

-Many agree that parts of the world appear to be designed as Paley stated.

-Tennant's examination of the probability of a fine-tuned universe makes it seem more likely that God created it.

Front 13

Explain the critique: Evolution explains the appearance of design.

(Is it a good critique?) [use example]

(2 bullet points)

Back 13

-Richard Dawkins (an evolutionary biologist) argued that Darwinism could explain how the world appears without a God. For example, it could explain why humans have exactly two arms and two feet, without referring to any God.

- He argued that it is not this world was made to fit us but instead we have adapted to fit this world.

This is a good critique because Darwin's theory of natural selection is a more convincing explanation and is accepted by most scientists thus far.

Front 14

Explain the critique: It Does not prove that the designer is the God of Classical Theism.

(Is it a good critique?) [use example]

(2 bullet points)

Back 14

-David Hume posited that even if Paley's argument was successful, it fails in proving that the 'world-maker' is the Christian God. For example: the argument could be used equally to argue for polytheism.

-Utilitarian J.S. Mill also argued that suffering in the world is evidence against the existence of God of Classical Theism.

This is not a strong critique: Although it points out the fact that Teleological arguments are only really useful for arguing for the belief of Deism per se, it does not give reason to suggest that they fail in proving the existence of God.

Front 15

William Jefferys: The Multi-verse hypothesis

(Is it a good critique?) [use example] (3 bullet points)

Back 15

-Jefferys argued that there could be multi-verses (or, parallel universes): If this is the case then the odds of life existing in one of these are far more than Tennant argues. For example: The odds of winning the national lottery are very low, but the odds of winning are vastly increased if one is to buy millions of tickets.

-This is a weak critique as there is no evidence of a multi-verse. One may argue that this would likewise make you similar to a theist who accepts the existence of God but Tennant's argument can be used to say that the mere odds of life existing are reasons to at least suggest that God exists.

Front 16

Conclusion

Back 16

-Evolution is a more convincing explanation than Paley's Watchmaker Analogy for why the universe appears to be designed.

-Behe's argument fails as many argue that he has misunderstood evolution and it remains that irreducibly complex systems can be explained by evolution.

-Tennant's Anthropic Argument however, is convincing as it is compatible with evoluiton and it does provide a convincing reason to believe in god (but merely a deistic God). Although there are logically possible explanations that could be used to refute it, their validity remains questionable.