Download 2. Teleological Argument

Does God Exist?
Nature of God
The four qualities of God (for our purposes):
1. Omnipotent (all powerful)
2. Omniscient (all knowing)
3. Omnibenevolent (perfectly good)
4. Creator of the universe
Nature of God
This is only one concept of God, but it seems to be the
notion of God advocated by the Judeo-Christian
family of religions.
Nature of God
This constrains what counts as a good argument for
God’s existence.
(1) Cosmological Argument
(2) Pascal’s Wager
Cosmological Argument
Cosmological Argument
(1) Every event must have a cause.
(2) The causal chain cannot be infinite.
(3) Therefore, there must have been a first cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
Cosmological Argument
Does the existence of a first cause mean the first cause
must be God (in our sense)?
 Why not a very very powerful but not omnipotent
creator?
 Why not a mostly but not perfectly good creator?
 Why not a coalition of creators?
 Why does the first cause have to be conscious at all?
Even granting all the premises, this argument does not
establish that God (in our sense) exists.
Pascal’s Wager
Pascal pointed out that there are four exhaustive
possibilities regarding God’s existence and your
belief:
1.
2.
3.
4.
God exists and you believe that God exists
God exists and you do not believe that God exists.
God does not exist and you believe that God exists.
God does not exist and you do not believe that God
exists.
Pascal’s Wager
God
Exists
Believe
in God
Don’t
believe
in God
God does
not Exist
Pascal’s Wager
Pascal’s Wager
God
Exists
Believe
in God
Don’t
believe
in God
God does
not Exist
Pascal’s Wager
Pascal’s Wager
God
Exists
Believe
in God
Don’t
believe
in God
God does
not Exist
Pascal’s Wager
Pascal’s Wager
God
Exists
Believe
in God
Don’t
believe
in God
God does
not Exist
Pascal’s Wager
Two (of many) problems with this argument:
First, the existence of Hell seems incompatible with the
idea of a perfectly benevolent, all-powerful deity.
 Not so bad. We can revise the argument slightly to
say, if you don’t believe you just don’t get into heaven.
 You still lose out infinitely by not gaining an infinitely
good reward, so the wager will still work.
Pascal’s Wager
The second more serious problem is that the argument
does not only work for God as we have defined the
term.
Zeus’ Wager
Zeus
Exists
Believe in
Zeus
Don’t
believe in
Zeus
Zeus
doesn’t
Exist
Zeus’ Wager
Both Zeus and the Judeo-Christian God are jealous, so
if you believe in the wrong one you go to hell.
You can run the same argument for a potential infinity
of jealous deities.
Paley vs. Dawkins:
The Teleological
Argument
Why They Failed
The two arguments we looked at last time failed
because they did not establish that a being with the
following properties exists:
 Omniscience
 Omnipotence
 Omnibenevolence
Even if they show that we should believe in something,
they don’t tell us what.
Preliminaries
“Telos” is translated from Greek as purpose, end, or
goal.
Preliminaries
Teleological arguments for the existence of God
purport to show that God must exist because the
universe (or some feature of it) could only have been
brought about by the hand of a conscious being.
Preliminaries
Usually their structure is to point to one or more
structures in the universe that seem to be designed and
argue that design implies a designer.
Preliminaries
Paley’s famous argument epitomizes two argument
forms we haven’t yet discussed:
1. Argument by analogy
2. Inference to the best explanation
Non-Deductive Arguments
Deductive arguments go wrong when:
1. One or more of the premises are false (or poorly
supported)
2. The premises do not entail the conclusion
3. The argument commits some fallacy or other (e.g.
circular reasoning)
Argument by Analogy
An argument by analogy is a non-deductive argument
of the following form:
1. X has feature A.
2. X is relevantly similar to Y.
3. Therefore, Y has feature A.
Argument by Analogy
Ways for an argument by analogy to fail:
1. The two compared phenomena are not that similar
2. They are similar in some ways, but different
relevant to the feature under consideration
3. The similarity between the two kinds of things is
superficial, and not supported by looking at a
wider sample size
4. There are unintended consequences to the analogy.
Inference to the Best
Explanation
Inference to the best explanation is another kind of
non-deductive argument of the following form:
1. X is an observed phenomena.
2. If Y were the case, then it would best explain why
X is the case.
3. Y is the case.
Inference to the Best
Explanation
You are walking on the beach and see two sets of
shoeprints next to one another, one set of adult size, and
one significantly smaller.
You conclude that the footprints are those of a parent
and a child because this best explains the data you have.
Inference to the Best
Explanation
Inference to the Best
Explanation
1.
2.
3.
4.
Power
Elegance
Simplicity
Consistent with proven explanations of other similar
observations
5. Fits into an explanatorily useful theory
6. Etc.
The Watch
We walk through the woods and come across a watch.
What conclusions should we draw about this thing?
The Watch
The object has certain features:
1. The parts are all arranged in a manner that
produces a certain motion.
2. If the parts were of slightly different physical form,
the motion would not occur.
3. If there were missing or different parts, the motion
would not occur.
4. If the parts were arranged differently the motion
would not occur
The Watch
Paley claims that the best explanation of these features
is that the object has a purpose, and that it was designed
by some intelligent entity to fulfill that purpose.
The Argument from
Analogy
Living organisms share all of these qualities:
1. The parts are all arranged in a manner that
produces a certain motion.
2. If the parts were of slightly different physical form,
the motion would not occur.
3. If there were missing or different parts, the motion
would not occur.
4. If the parts were arranged differently the motion
would not occur
The Argument from
Analogy
Paley’s Argument
1. Watches have complex features the best
explanation of which is that the watch was created
by an intelligent designer for some purpose.
2. Living organisms are similar to watches in these
respects.
3. Therefore, the best explanation of the complexities
that we find in living organisms is that living
organisms were created by an intelligent designer
for some purpose.
Disanalogy #1
We know how a watch is constructed, but we do not
know how a human is constructed.
1. Do we know this about the watch (you and me?)
2. Would it matter? What if we happened across some
advanced alien technology? Some lost art of ancient
people?
Disanalogy #2
We know the purpose of the watch but we do not
know the purpose of living things.
 We don’t need to know particular purpose of an
artifact to know that it was designed for some
purpose or other.
 The same goes for individual parts of the watch
Disanalogy #3
Watches do not duplicate themselves, organisms do.
 Paley argues that if the watch were able to do this it
would simply be more evidence of design, and cause
for greater respect for the designed.
 Would make it likely that the first watch we
observed was not the original, but this should not
affect our conclusion that there was some original
watch, that was designed by an intelligent designer.
Summing Up
“There cannot be design without a designer;
contrivance, without a contriver; order, without
choice; arrangement, without anything capable of
arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose,
without that which could intend a purpose; means
suitable to an end, and executing their office in
accomplishing that end, without the end ever having
been contemplated, or the means accommodated to
it.” (11)
Summing Up
“There cannot be design without a designer;
contrivance, without a contriver; order, without
choice; arrangement, without anything capable of
arranging; subserviency and relation to a purpose,
without that which could intend a purpose; means
suitable to an end, and executing their office in
accomplishing that end, without the end ever having
been contemplated, or the means accommodated to
it.” (11)
For Next Time
Read the interchange between Anselm and Guanilo,
(22-32 in the reader)
A Problem?
Does the teleological argument suffer from the same
flaw as the cosmological argument did?
 Suppose we grant that there must be a designer.
 Why must that designer be God?
A Problem
This is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed,
but there are things that can be said:
 Only an omnipotent Creator would have the power to
bring into existence the vastness of the universe.
 Only an omniscient Creator could have set things up
to work in such perfect harmony creating galaxies,
solar systems, stars, planets, etc.
Dawkins on the Design
Argument
Complexity and
Explanation
Any kind of complexity is statistically unlikely and
demands explanation.
The best kinds of explanations of complex
phenomena explaining the complexity in terms of
simpler phenomena.
Complexity and
Explanation
Design explanations of complex phenomena should be
a theoretic last resort, at least in the absence of direct
evidence of design (e.g. you watch someone make a
watch)
The Prometheus Problem
In general, explaining complexity by reference to
equally or more complex phenomena just causes us to
demand an explanation of the greater complexity.
The Prometheus Problem
Just like it doesn’t help to explain the origins of life by
talking about aliens seeding life on earth, it doesn’t
seem to help explain complexity (biological and
otherwise) by appealing to God.
The Prometheus Problem
Dawkins points out that God seems to be the most
complex thing around.
Thus, an appeal to God to explain a bit of complexity
that baffles us, is not much of an explanation at all.
Natural Selection
Natural Selection: The process by which organisms
with genotypic traits that make them better suited to
their environment tend to survive, reproduce, and
increase in number.
Natural Selection
Phenotype: Observable traits of an organism. E.g.
form, structure, development, behavior, physiological
properties, etc.
Genotype: Genetic traits of an organism. Inherited
genetic code.
Natural Selection
1.
Copying errors in the reproduction of the genetic code
(mutations) result in different genotypic traits.
2.
These genotypic traits may result in different phenotypic
traits.
3.
If the new phenotypic traits are beneficial, they
promote survival and reproduction of the organism
and thus are reproduced in the next generation.
4.
If the phenotypic traits are malignant, they are selected
against.
Natural Selection: A Better
Explanation
Natural selection doesn’t have the Prometheus
problem that the design hypothesis has because it
explains complexity in terms of simpler entities.
Natural Selection: A Better
Explanation
Why it is a better explanation than design:
1. Power: it explains how all complex traits of living
organisms arose
2. Elegance: it does so by use of a single overarching
principle (NS).
3. Simplicity: Does not posit additional entities
beyond those of the natural world
4. Reductive: Explains the very complex by making
reference only to successively simpler elements.
Irreducible Complexity
 This is an empirical theory that (like all such
theories) may be falsified.
 One way this could happen would be for us to
discover some kind of complex structure in an
organism that could not be explained by the process
of natural selection
 Such a trait would be an instance of irreducibly
complexity (IC).
Irreducible Complexity
Possible examples: the eye, the nervous system, the
flagellar motor, a bird or insect’s wing, etc.
Even if these have evolutionary explanations (which
they do), it is possible that some genuine example of
IC could be found.
Irreducible Complexity
Two things to remember about all such examples:
1. No candidate has yet been offered that has stood
up to serious scrutiny and protracted investigation.
2. The bar is low for the biologist: all she has to show
to respond to the objection is that natural selection
could have produced the trait in question.
Fine-Tuning
It turns out that if certain fundamental features of the
universe (e.g. the force of gravity, the amount of
energy in the universe at its creation) were only very
slightly different, then life would have never
developed.
Announcements
The course website is phil1ucsb.wordpress.com.
For next time read Rowe’s “The Problem of Evil and
Some Varieties of Atheism”
Fine-Tuning
Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation:
G= 6.67384 x 10-11 m3kg-1s-2
Fine-Tuning
Given that a relatively small number of the infinite
possible values for these features would be amenable
to life as we know it, it seems like some basic features
of the universe were fine-tuned to allow for life to
develop.
God of the Gaps
We don’t currently have an explanation for the
observed values of the cosmological constants, and
there are unanswered questions in evolutionary
biology (e.g. the origins of life)
God of the Gaps
Both the irreducible complexity and the fine-tuning
arguments make use of what Dawkins calls “the God
of the Gaps” argument.
(1) There is some gap in our naturalistic/scientific
understanding of the world.
(2) Therefore, the correct explanation of this
phenomena must be supernatural (e.g. God)
God of the Gaps: Problems
1. Science has historically been very good at filling the
gaps. (e.g. alleged examples of IC like the wing, the eye
and the nervous system).
2. The current lack of a scientific explanation of some
physical phenomena does not suggest that one will not
be given at a later date.
3. Even if current naturalistic theories cannot explain a
feature of the universe, the default view should not be
the design hypothesis. When a scientific theory fails,
the response is to look for a new theory!
4. Current gaps in understanding should encourage us to
find answers to our questions.
God of the Gaps: Problems
From Dawkins:
“If you don’t understand how something works, never
mind: just give up and say God did it. You don’t know
how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t
understand how memories are laid down in the brain?
Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process?
Wonderful. Please don’t go work on the problem, just give
up and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your
mysteries. Bring us your mysteries, for we can use them.
Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away.
We need those glorious gaps as a last refuge for God.” (24)
God of the Gaps: Rejoinder
Isn’t some explanation better than no explanation?
 Right now, science cannot explain these things but
the theistic hypothesis can.
 Isn’t it reasonable, right now, to believe in God
given our evidence?
God of the Gaps
Sometimes it is better to not believe any explanation.
If the evidence does not positively support any
particular explanation, then the correct attitude to take
is to suspend judgment on the matter.
God of the Gaps
There are deep mysteries about the universe that we
do not yet understand.
But it is precisely because of our deep ignorance about
things like the origins of life or the reasons for the
deepest structural features of the universe that we
should not base any beliefs on these matters.