Introduction to the Teleological Argument
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ค. 2024
- In this episode we begin our look at the teleological argument for God. Also known as the argument from design, or the design argument, the teleological argument begins from features of the universe that exhibit order, structure, harmony, beauty, and intelligibility and from them infers the existence of a designing intelligence.
Many of Hume's objections can be answered.
Objection (1) :"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a
city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?"
Responses:
"If the
physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than
being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only
one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad
reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the
absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced
with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more
than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the
creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than
one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for
preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the
universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and
uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the
product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single
designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been
expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural
individualities.
"
(David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
"And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with
polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same
natural laws .
If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some
explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing
the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a
new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of
order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate
one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the
simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power
of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as
great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible
for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic
marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the
universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the
different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square
of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in
another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square
law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more
general law."
(Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
Objection (2) :"[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an
animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle
of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a
continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest
sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part
or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of
the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles
more a human body than it does the works of human art and
contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one
precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a
stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal."
Response:
"Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical
universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or
other artefact. The claim is unconvincing.
In its manifest workings,
the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds
that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by
the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of
sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical
universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable
machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less
regular and predictable animal or vegetable. "
(David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
Objection (3) :"But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain."
Responses:
"From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot
reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and
rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong
to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will
happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron,
the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the
surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence,
that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about
such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the
universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have
knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach
conclusions about the origin and development of the human race
(because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind).
The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the
original objection, which is indeed totally misguided."
(Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
"By tracing the origin of
the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology
places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the
physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds
that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as
grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the
physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things
which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations.
"
(David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")
"Second, Hume seems to assume that the universe is unique and conclusions cannot be reached about
unique objects by analogy. But this is false as well. Astronomers reach conclusions all the time about
the origin of the universe and this is unique. Furthermore, all events are unique in some sense, but no
one would want to say that arguments by analogy do not apply to any objects whatever. The fact that
the universe or some other object is unique does not rule out the possibility that it has properties in
common with some other object, including some of its parts. For example, there may be only one
object which satisfies the description "the tallest man in Maryland," but one could still compare this
object with other objects and make judgments about the origination of the object. If one accepted Hume's principle it would seem to rule out the possibility of discovering a new culture and inferring
that an utterly new and unique object in that culture was designed. But such an inference seems to be
quite possible.
"
(J.P Moreland "Scaling The Secular City")
Objection (4) :" Who designed the designer? "
Response:
"The next argument which we meet in the Dialogues is that the postulated
existence of a rational agent who produces the order of the world would itself need
explaining. Picturing such an agent as a mind, and a mind as an arrangement of
ideas, Hume phrases the objection as follows: "a mental world or Universe of ideas
requires a cause as much as does a material world or Universe of objects."
Hume
himself provides the obvious answer to this-that it is no objection to explaining
X by Y that we cannot explain Y. But then he suggests that the Y, in this case the
mind, is just as mysterious as the ordered Universe. Men never "thought it satisfactory to explain a particular effect by a particular cause which was no more to be
accounted for than the effect itself."
On the contrary, scientists have always
thought it reasonable to postulate entities merely to explain effects, so long as the
postulated entities accounted simply and coherently for the characteristics of the
effects. The existence of molecules with their characteristic behavior was "no more to be accounted for" than observable phenomena, but the postulation of their existence gave a neat and simple explanation of a whole host of chemical and physical
phenomena, and that was the justification for postulating their existence. "
(Richard Swinburne "The Argument From Design")
"We can
give a perfectly good explanation of how it came about that Jones lost
his fortune in terms of the way the Monte Carlo roulette wheel spun
as it did, while judging that there was no explanation of how the
roulette wheel spun, this being something utterly beyond accounting
for."
(Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God")
I like how you suggest that we should combine the cosmological argument with the teleological argument. Robert Koons is my favorite philosopher and he stated a similar thing on his 1997 cosmological argument paper.
I'm seriously knowledgeable when it comes to the versions of the cosmological arguments, but I want to get in to the depths of the teleological and transcendental arguments. Thanks for your awesome video!
8:28 please explain how we have free will.
I think free will is something transparent to me and properly basic for me. It's just something that I can see, by the light of reason, to be true about myself. I think you can see that it is true about yourself as well, that is, as long as you are open to reality as it is and not poisoned by a bad philosophy like that of reductive materialism.
There are retorsion arguments that can help clear the way to see your own freedom of will as well. For example, you ask, "Please explain how we have free will." I assume you ask because you have some rational motivation. Perhaps it's to expose some view of mine as irrational or poorly evidenced. Perhaps you are genuinely curious as to my position. Perhaps you would like to learn and advance in your own knowledge of reality. The point is that whatever the motivation, you believe yourself rational in posing the question. But if there is no free will, then there is no rationality. Your thinking is the result of the prior state of the universe plus the laws of nature. Rationality is therefore illusionary. We don't believe the things we believe because we have reasons for them, we believe them because we have been causally determined to do so. Physical causes are not reasons. But then any rational case against free will will also be generated in the same way, not for reasons but because of some prior physical state plus the laws. But then there can be no rational case against free will. All of this seems utterly absurd to me and even perhaps self-referentially incoherent.
@@thinkforchrist Yes I agree. It is a very persuasive illusion.
Order, structure, beauty, harmony, and intelligibility of the Universe? You could take the exact opposite values and apply them to the Universe: chaotic, unstructured, ugly, disharmonious and unintelligible and find countless of evidences or quotes from ancient times to nowadays to support those qualities.
Whatever disorder there is in the world is accidental. Order and disorder are not on an even ontological plane. The scale is by no means balanced. Order is primary and fundamental. This is because being as such is intelligible through and through. Indeed, apart from the order and intelligibility of things, we could not even recognize or identify disorder. In this way disorder is like chance. We could not possibly make sense of chance unless there was stable causal regularity from which to distinguish it.
Science only uses induction in their investigations. However the inferences drawn are supported by a mountain of evidence. Speculation, implication, assumptions are not entertained as explanations for anything scientific.
Your speculation for a "supernatural, designing, intelligence, has not been supported by evidence and therefore is dismissed as a viable explanation.
I'm sorry to say that you seem to be working from a poor understanding of the nature of scientific theorizing which is very often full of "speculation," "implication," and "assumptions." Curious, I haven't even presented a proper argument for design, yet you nevertheless triumphantly conclude: "Your speculation for a supernatural, designing, intelligence, has not been supported by evidence and therefore is dismissed as a viable explanation." You exercise remarkable faith in your own skepticism my friend.
@@thinkforchrist I don't care for your response. Where is the evidence for a supernatural, designing, intelligence? Your words.
Quite well nutshelled my friend. You've saved me some time there. 😊
@@drdr3005 unfortunately my ignorance is not evidence for the existence of a god.
@@drdr3005 rather than pray for me, how about adopting scepticism and believe as many true things and few false things as possible.
Call it what you want, this is just good old fashioned "intelligent design" nonsense rebranded, by those whose incredulity factor has hit warp 9. sigh 😔
Nothing raises the hackles of the anti-theist like that odious and hateful term, "intelligent design." Of course, I only mention ID at the biological level in particular. The other four ontological levels of design (that of metaphysics, mathematics, physics, and human consciousness) do not appeal to ID science in particular or biology in general.
Many atheists (including Hume) believe that the fine-tuning of the universe can be explained through the multiverse. However, this hypothesis has very serious problems:
"It seems that there could be infinitely many universes, yet none
that support life. Suppose that we name all the possible universes using
the natural numbers: U1, U2, U3, and so on. If there are infinitely
many universes, clearly there are infinitely many odd-numbered
universes, but what if none of them support life? Perhaps only a few
of the even-numbered universes support life. So it seems possible that
there could be infinitely many universes (namely, the odd-numbered
ones), yet none that support life. The question, then, is this: Even if we
allow that there are infinitely many universes, does this (by itself)
guarantee that at least one will probably support life? Not clearly.
More importantly, if multiverse naturalists insist that they’ve postulated enough universes to make fine-tuning unsurprising, a second
problem emerges: Multiverse naturalism explains too much, too easily;
for by appeal to the multiverse we can explain any physical phenomenon P just by pointing out that, given that there are so many universes differing in random ways, it’s not surprising that one of them
contains P. Any arrangement of physical particles or structures is apt
to be realized if we postulate enough universes. So the multiverse
hypothesis can apparently explain any physical phenomenon. But can
it really be that easy to explain each and every physical phenomenon?
Surely not. It seems, then, that the multiverse approach offers a very
dubious type of explanation-one that has all the advantages of theft
over honest toil. "
(Stephen Layman "God:Eight Enduring Questions")
"The multiverse hypothesis has some more general problems, however. Such
proposals “over-explain,” especially if the number of proposed universes is
infinite. Having an infinite set of random universes means that any possibility
will occur an infinite number of times. There is, then, no need to explain anything in the physics of our own universe, because whatever we find could have
just occurred by chance. So those who are seeking explanations for the values
of parameters such as the masses of elementary particles, or the strengths of
physical forces, could be wasting their time. If even our own universe is infinitely large, then there will be an infinite number of planets closely like our
own planet Earth, containing populations that include people closely resembling you and me, who made choices in their lives the same as yours and mine,
or differing in arbitrary ways. Anything with a small probability to happen will
occur somewhere, indeed an infinite number of times. “Impossible” events
might occur with nominally zero probability but still a finite number of times.
It becomes hard to determine whether anything is truly impossible.
Suggestions such as these stretch our notion of what is reasonable far
beyond normal limits. They are not forced upon us by observation, needless
to say, but by theoretical ideas that are considered by their proposers to be
attractive! The quantum theorist Max Born once wrote, “Intellect distinguishes
between the possible and the impossible, but reason distinguishes between the sensible and the senseless. Even the possible can be senseless.”4
We need
to think very hard about the criteria for judging concepts that are logically
consistent but which seem to destroy understanding rather than extend it, or
even destroy the need for understanding."
(Peter Bussey "Signposts To God")
"Finally, the hypothesis proves too much. While its advocates take the
hypothesis to allow one to avoid the conclusion that the universe resulted
from an intentional creative action by God, I think it also drives one to
avoid believing in other intentional actions by us humans. Consider this: In
the infinite ensemble of concrete universes, there will be myriads of
universes that contain observing beings. Within that range of universes,
there will be universes that contain doubles of us; beings that are
indistinguishably similar to us but have a different life (say, my duplicate is
a lawyer instead of a philosopher).
Now suppose we have a pot of $500 for the winner of our bridge card
game and I am the dealer. On the first deal-surprise-I give myself a
perfect winning hand. The others at the table (rightly) accuse me of doing
an intentional act (purposely cheating). I respond by noting that, in the
Many Worlds Ensemble, there are many, many worlds where we have
duplicates, and in many of those, they are playing bridge, and in each
world, players get a different hand on the first deal. We just happen to be in
that concrete universe where I got a winning hand on the first deal. Surely
such an explanation is bogus, but not if I and my card-playing friends
correctly apply the ensemble view to our current situation!"
(J.P Moreland "Scientism and Secularism")
Thanks for these!
You aren't going to argue a sentient god being into reality.
How do angels and demons fit into these arguements?
Do you even realize the sheer number of christians making videos and the demonstrable claims of interaction and communication with Mr. Yahweh and his sidekick son? In the present?
You should know what christians say. Why are you presenting an argument?
It's time for you guys to cut the crap and realize your God only exists as an imaginary character.
I hope you feel better after getting this rant off your chest.
There are too many mistakes here to address, so I will start with the worst: "When Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution he thought the living cell was a relatively simple thing". Darwin is not our god or leader, he did not speak the revealed truth, His work is not even completely original. As a matter of fact, at least one colleague could have published similar theories at about the same time but did not do so for personal reasons. If we found tomorrow that Darwin was a drunk who plagiarized or invented all of his work, the way in which Biology is taught and used for the benefit of humanity would not change one bit.
Real biology says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a god or gods. The only problem exists between actual biology and the literal reading of the Bible. Most Christian scientists understand that believing in a god and accepting the simple fact of the existence of evolution are not incompatible. Only a handful of Christian and Muslim literalists want to throw away everything we know about biology to believe that a literal ark was constructed by a literal Noah to survive a literal Global Flood.
There are so many mistakes here to address, so I will start with the worst: Nothing said in this response does anything to reveal "mistakes" in the video, let alone to refute or challenge anything said in the video. I made a simple and true statement about Darwin's own understanding of the cell. I didn't even go on to draw any conclusions from it or assume that Darwin's views are somehow to be taken as canonical and inerrant by contemporary Darwinists. I simply used it as a way to briefly introduce the rise of the Intelligent Design movement in biology.
@@thinkforchrist Your phrase "rise of the Intelligent Design in biology" sounds like there is an actual movement in the biological sciences about intelligent design. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The most fervent proponent of Intelligent Design, Michael Behe, could not even explain to a very conservative judge that there is any science in ID at the Dover trial. There are no articles demonstrating intelligent design in any reputable biology journals. Almost every biologist who is not associated with the Discovery Institute will tell you that intelligent design, if it happened at all, happened before or during the Big Bang and not by tinkering with the evolution of individual species on Earth.
Also, your claim that Darwin thought that the living cell is a relatively simple thing is just a word game. Darwin, with the tools available at his time, could not have imagined the true complexity of a living cell, just as we, with our current tools and knowledge, cannot imagine the true complexities of Quantum Physics. Everybody is limited by the available tools and knowledge in the understanding of everything. And nothing that Darwin said is important, except for historical purposes. Every claim by Darwin has been tested thousands of times, and some claims have been withheld, and some have been debunked. Nothing In biology is true or relevant because Darwin said it (or did not say it), and nothing in science is decided by arguments of authority.
"Your phrase 'rise of the Intelligent Design in biology' sounds like there is an actual movement in the biological sciences about intelligent design." I didn't mean to imply that there is a branch of biological science as such dedicated to ID, but that there is a design argument that is made from the "ontological level" of biology (as the context of the video makes clear). There is, in fact, an ID movement built around discoveries in micro-biology. Some in the movement are biologists, others are mathematicians and philosophers. I named three resources in the video as a sample of the mountain of material that is available on the subject.
"Your claim that Darwin thought that the living cell is a relatively simple thing is just a word game." What does this statement even mean? That's what he thought. Period. I'm not disparaging him for this. Obviously he couldn't have known better. But so what? What is the point?
@@thinkforchrist Michael Beje, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer are all mouthpieces of the Discovery Institute, and as such, they all signed declarations placing their religious dogma above everything else, including any pursuit toward actual science. They should never be even mentioned except in the context of a religious discussion. If you think there is any discovery in micro-biology that debunks anything in the Theory of Evolution, tell me. You are probably thinking about the evolution of eyes, or the evolution of organelles in cells that produce motion, but you will never find a serious biological study that concludes anything other than these are fabulous examples of evolution in motion. You can say there is a movement around ID but that is meaningless unless there is actual science behind it. Your sample, more than a sample, is just about everything the movement has done.
As I said in several ways before, nobody cares what Darwin said, except for historical purposes. He did not have a clue about the complexity of living cells because he did not have the tools or knowledge to find out, and that does not add or subtract a single thing about our current knowledge of biology. It is as if we care whether Pythagoras knew about calculus or not. It is a totally moot argument that changes nothing.
Ad hominem and non sequitur. "Mistakes," I'll assume are not forthcoming.
My theory is there must be a God. Who else can hold our universe together so precisely? Just saying.