TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
SPECIFICATION
Teleological/design arguments
The design argument from Hume
William Paley’s design argument: argument from spatial
order/purpose
Richard Swinburne’s design argument from temporal
order/regularity
Issues:
Hume's objections to the design argument from analogy
The problem of spatial disorder (as posed by Hume and Paley)
The design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case
(Hume)
Whether God is the best or only explanation
, OVERVIEW:
Telos = end or purpose Teleological = study of purpose of something
The contingent world is NOT 'self-explanatory'(it is not clear on first inspection why things are
the way they are)
Contingent objects do not contain within themselves the reason for their own existence and so
can only be explained by reference to an antecedent cause
are concerned with the ‘ends’, ‘goals’, or ‘purposes of phenomena in nature from the
Greek word 'telos'.
they are a posteriori, arguing from observable features of the universe to the existence
of a being (God) who designed the universe.
they are generally inductive: striving to deliver probable conclusions in favour of God/a
designer’s existence. This means that they may be described as 'strong' or 'cogent' BUT
NOT 'certain'.
Design arguments are sometimes divided up into those that focus on instances of spatial
regularity and those that focus on temporal regularity, although they can also be used in
combination.
Teleological/design arguments are a posteriori, inductive arguments - we ask whether the
apparent order in the world can be explained without referring to a designer AND whether such
a designer would have to be 'God'
HUME'S DESIGN ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY
-> Hume has the purpose of objecting to it and concluding it is unpersuasive for a variety of reasons
(not his own view)
analogy = comparison between two things – a deeper understand of one or both of the objects
being compared is reached. An analogical argument is only as good as the analogy it uses.
Some analogies are better than others if two things being compared have lots of relevant
similarities.
Such an argument is one in which, on the basis of x and y being similar in certain respects, the
conclusion is drawn that they will be similar in a yet further respect.
In teleological or design arguments, the argument draws an analogy between the properties
that human-made objects have and the properties found in nature/natural objects and uses this
to conclude that they must have a similar cause (ie an intelligent designer/God).
Hume focuses on what Swinburne would later describe as ‘spatial order’ or ‘regularities of
copresence’. This refers to patterns of order within something in space at one instant of time (eg
the arrangements of the parts of the human body, the eye, or a cell and how they fit or work
together) which allow a function to be performed.
1. Hume argues that this form of analogical argument commits the FALLACY OF
COMPOSITION
-similarity between objects created by human beings, such as knitting-looms and objects in nature such
as eyes
-one might assume that since individual objects appear designed, the universe as a whole is designed.
-However, it is a fallacy to assume that a part is always relevantly similar to a whole. This is the fallacy
of composition
SPECIFICATION
Teleological/design arguments
The design argument from Hume
William Paley’s design argument: argument from spatial
order/purpose
Richard Swinburne’s design argument from temporal
order/regularity
Issues:
Hume's objections to the design argument from analogy
The problem of spatial disorder (as posed by Hume and Paley)
The design argument fails as it is an argument from a unique case
(Hume)
Whether God is the best or only explanation
, OVERVIEW:
Telos = end or purpose Teleological = study of purpose of something
The contingent world is NOT 'self-explanatory'(it is not clear on first inspection why things are
the way they are)
Contingent objects do not contain within themselves the reason for their own existence and so
can only be explained by reference to an antecedent cause
are concerned with the ‘ends’, ‘goals’, or ‘purposes of phenomena in nature from the
Greek word 'telos'.
they are a posteriori, arguing from observable features of the universe to the existence
of a being (God) who designed the universe.
they are generally inductive: striving to deliver probable conclusions in favour of God/a
designer’s existence. This means that they may be described as 'strong' or 'cogent' BUT
NOT 'certain'.
Design arguments are sometimes divided up into those that focus on instances of spatial
regularity and those that focus on temporal regularity, although they can also be used in
combination.
Teleological/design arguments are a posteriori, inductive arguments - we ask whether the
apparent order in the world can be explained without referring to a designer AND whether such
a designer would have to be 'God'
HUME'S DESIGN ARGUMENT FROM ANALOGY
-> Hume has the purpose of objecting to it and concluding it is unpersuasive for a variety of reasons
(not his own view)
analogy = comparison between two things – a deeper understand of one or both of the objects
being compared is reached. An analogical argument is only as good as the analogy it uses.
Some analogies are better than others if two things being compared have lots of relevant
similarities.
Such an argument is one in which, on the basis of x and y being similar in certain respects, the
conclusion is drawn that they will be similar in a yet further respect.
In teleological or design arguments, the argument draws an analogy between the properties
that human-made objects have and the properties found in nature/natural objects and uses this
to conclude that they must have a similar cause (ie an intelligent designer/God).
Hume focuses on what Swinburne would later describe as ‘spatial order’ or ‘regularities of
copresence’. This refers to patterns of order within something in space at one instant of time (eg
the arrangements of the parts of the human body, the eye, or a cell and how they fit or work
together) which allow a function to be performed.
1. Hume argues that this form of analogical argument commits the FALLACY OF
COMPOSITION
-similarity between objects created by human beings, such as knitting-looms and objects in nature such
as eyes
-one might assume that since individual objects appear designed, the universe as a whole is designed.
-However, it is a fallacy to assume that a part is always relevantly similar to a whole. This is the fallacy
of composition
