Content and Exam Tips for OCR A Level Religious Studies
Teleological, Cosmological Arguments
Arguments Based on Observation
Content
the teleological argument
the cosmological argument
challenges to arguments from observation
Key Knowledge
details of this argument including reference to:
Aquinas’ Fifth Way
Paley
details of this argument including reference to:
Aquinas’ first three ways
details of Hume’s criticisms of these arguments for the existence of God from natural religion
the challenge of evolution
Teleological Argument
The word ‘Telos’ is Greek for ‘purpose’. The Teleological argument thus argues that the universe is being directed towards a telos, an end purpose, and the a posteriori evidence of an apparent intelligent design in the world implies the existence of an intelligent designer, God.
St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE)
Aquinas attempted to reconcile the ideas of Aristotle with the teachings of Christianity. He wrote Summa Theologica and laid out Five Ways; succinct arguments for the existence of God.
Aquinas' Fifth Way
Teleological arguments are also known as design arguments for the existence of God. Telos refers to purpose. Teleological arguments are based on observing purpose in living things within the world. If things have purpose, it suggests that they have been designed with a purpose in mind. If something is designed, it is logical to conclude it has a designer.
Aquinas writes that "...whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God."
Source: Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
Premise 1: We observe that nature follows natural laws
Premise 2: Things thrive as they obey natural laws
Premise 3: Thinking things direct themselves towards their goal
Premise 4: Non-thinking things must be directed towards their goal by an intelligence external to itself
Premise 5: There must be a great intelligence external to the world that directs things
Conclusion: The external intelligence is God
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
Examples in nature of non-thinking beings that act to achieve a purpose e.g. sunflowers turning to to face sunlight.
It is correct that an arrow needs an archer to direct it. We could argue that it seems reasonable to assume natural things are also directed towards their purpose.
Aquinas is right that we need an explanation for purpose. Purpose is a sign of a conscious mind that plans an end within its design. God is an explanation that works.
Michael Behe defended intelligent design by presenting examples of organisms which could not have evolved over time because their complexity could not be reduced or simplified.
Weaknesses
There could be another explanation for apparent purpose. Evolution?
Aquinas makes an assumption about purpose. It could be chance?
Aquinas can be accused of of logical fallacy (an error in logical reasoning) because he makes a logical leap to the idea of God of classical theism. We cannot assume the designer, if there is one, is God.
Richard Swinburne accuses Aquinas of committing the circular reasoning fallacy. Aquinas assumes that the world is designed in order to conclude that there is a designer.
Michael Behe and the Revolution of Intelligent Design
William Paley (1743-1805 CE)
Paley lived during a time of great advances in mechanical engineering. His work Natural Theology outlines his version of the teleological argument for the existence of God.
Paley's Teleological Argument
A modern version of the argument was devised in the 18th century by Paley in his book Natural Theology. There are two parts to Paley’s argument:
Design qua Purpose – the universe was designed to fulfil a purpose
Design qua Regularity – the universe behaves according to some order
Design qua Purpose
Paley compares the mechanical watch with observations of natural things that also seem mechanical and have purpose. Based on Paley's observations, he argued that all things were fit for purpose in that they were all designed perfectly to do what they did. These observations led Paley to the conclusion of a conscious mind that intentionally designed purpose and, for Paley, this designer is God.
Design qua Regularity
The second part of Paley’s argument goes on to suggest that there is further evidence for a creator God in the regularity of the universe. Paley considered the motion of the planets in our solar system. The relationships between the planets, and the effect of gravity could not have come about without a designing principle at work – that is God. For example, if gravity was slightly stronger or weaker, the universe may not exist today.
The Watch Analogy
Suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there. I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there.
This mechanism being observed the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker, that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.
Here we can see clear links to Aristotle's four causes: material, formal, efficient and final.
Material - components of the watch
Formal - fit together in a complex way
Efficient - must be an artificer
Final - fit for the purpose of telling time
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
A designer would know what they wanted to create and why, giving their creation purpose. We can observe things that have a purpose in the natural world and so it suggests there was a designer behind it.
Purpose can be observed in living beings.
Paley responded to criticisms about apparent lack of purpose. Even if we do not understand how or why all the parts of the watch work, it would not take away from our conclusion of design.
Design qua regularity can be observed through the order and predictable patterns seen in nature, e.g. gravity.
Even if the watch was broken, we could infer a watchmaker because of the overall design and purpose.
Weaknesses
David Hume argues that there is a leap from observing purpose in the world to assuming this purpose was intentionally designed by God.
Richard Dawkins claims that natural selection is a 'blind' process; there is no intentional purpose.
Some natural things don't seem to have a purpose or have poor design.
In physics, the law of entropy states there is a tendency towards disorder rather than order.
There are too many faults in the world to suggest a God designed it.
The analogy is unsound: natural things are different to human designs; the world is more like a vegetable than a machine.
God is made more human: if the analogy is sound, then God must be more similar to humans and so it could not be concluded that he is infinite or perfect.
The Problem of Evil: John Stuart Mill argued that the most we can claim is that the designer of the universe must be loving, but the existence of evil and suffering suggests that he could be seriously limited in power.
David Hume (1711-1776 CE)
Hume was a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, historian, economist, librarian and essayist, who is best known today for his highly influential system of philosophical empiricism, scepticism, and naturalism.
Hume's Criticisms of Teleological Arguments
Hume died before Paley's work was released so did not comment directly on Paley's examples. In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion three philosophers (Cleanthes, Demea, and Philos) discuss arguments from observation and design. Philos, as a critic, often ridicules Cleanthes, the supporter of design.
Cleanthes' argument is as follows:
Premise 1: In the same way that a machine needs a designer, the world also needs a designer.
Premise 2: A great design necessarily implies Greatness in the designer.
Premise 3: There is clearly great design in the world.
Conclusion: There must be a great designer of the world.
Problems Using Analogies - Argument Against Premise 1
Through the character Philo, Hume finds problems with using analogies to compare our experience with the design of the universe. Hume argues that analogy is limited in strength unless two things being compared are similar. He was famed for stating that the world is more like a cabbage than a machine. The cosmos cannot be compared to a machine, so it cannot be compared to a watch.
He also argued:
Analogies can lead to mistaken conclusions.
Could there be a young god? An inferior god? Are there many designers? Why does the assumption have to be the one god of classical theism?
Argument Against Premise 2 - Nature of the World
Hume argues that the world is not perfectly designed. He comments that nature is 'red in tooth and claw'. If the nature of the designer can be seen in their creation, then the designer of this world is itself malevolent or imbecilic. This can clearly be linked to the Problem of Evil; why does evil and suffering exist in this world? Why would a great designer allow its creation to suffer?
Argument Against Premise 3 - Appearance of Design Does Not Mean Intention
Hume challenges the idea that we can assume that there is design in the world. He attached this from the logical position that A -> B does not imply B -> A. Hume argues that we cannot assume that there is design just because there is apparent design. If we cannot experience the designer than we cannot speak of design.
Problems Using Observation
Hume also criticises a posteriori arguments.
Although we may see order in parts of the world, we cannot assume there is order across the whole world. This is a fallacy of composition (what is observed about the parts cannot be assumed to be the same of the whole).
The Epicurean Hypothesis
Hume suggested an alternative theory for apparent design using the Epicurean hypothesis. A finite number of particles, given eternal time, may eventually fall into order by chance. Even though it may appear arranged or designed, it was simply due to constant motion or trial and error. We can only observe this current state because it is ordered now. If there was disorder, we would not be here to observe it.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
We cannot assume the world has a designer because a man-made machine has one.
This argument assumes the designer is the monotheistic God.
This argument assumes intentional design.
Assumes the fallacy of composition.
Weaknesses
Similar effects often have similar causes.
Hume is taking the analogy too far and mocking it.
Paley responds to the criticism: he could not throw all of the parts of the watch in the air and expect them to fall so that the watch worked and told the time. It seems more incredible to argue for chance than it does for design.
Paley does not argue that there is purpose behind the whole world, only things within it.
Evolution
Charles Darwin (1809-1882) proposed the theory of natural selection. He used empirical methods to show that, through natural selection, the creatures most suited to their environment survived and passed on their characteristics to their young. This is called survival of the fittest.
So how does this challenge the teleological argument?
If species have survived due to adaptation to the environment, there is no need for a designer or God.
If evolution is a random process, there is no overall purpose or design.
It challenges the status and dignity of humankind because humans have evolved in the same way as animals. What makes us unique?
Wider Reading for the Teleological Argument
Frederick R Tennant - The Anthropic Principle
The Anthropic Principle is a modern development of the design argument.
The Principle is based on the fact that it is hugely based on the fact that it is highly unlikely that the universe could support intelligent life, and yet it does.
Tennant argues that the best evidence of design could be seen in the way the universe is able to support intelligent life, and appears to revolve around humankind. Nature seems to plan in advance for the needs of animals and humans, and this planning cannot be accounted for by physical laws alone. Thus, there must be more than physical laws to account for the importability of human life.
Tennant later developed the Anthropic Principle to include the Aesthetic Principle; the love and appreciation of art, music and literature that human beings possess. He argues that Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot explain why human beings are able to show love towards the beauty in the world. Tennant believed that this capacity for joy was put in us by our designer; God.
Richard Swinburne - Regularities of Co-Presence and Succession
Swinburne did not think that Paley’s argument was very persuasive. He believed there were flaws in the argument from analogy because modern science can explain the complexities that exist within nature; you do not need to look to God to explain them.
Swinburne calls the complexity Paley describes the ‘regularities of co-presence’. Instead, Swinburne focuses on what he calls ‘regularities of succession’; here he is talking about temporal order, the laws of nature throughout the universe. Although science can explain the phenomena, science cannot explain the laws themselves. These laws have been put in place for a purpose, and Swinburne argues that this was by an omnipotent being.
By employing Occam’s razor, Swinburne asserts that the existence of a designer-creator being is the best, simplest answer to the temporal order (regularities of succession) which exist throughout space, throughout all time. In other words, God is the simplest answer.
The Cosmological Argument
Cosmological Argument
The Cosmological argument argues for the existence of God a posteriori based on evidence - the apparent order in the universe.
Aquinas believed that the universe cannot be self causing since it is contingent and only the existence of a first necessary cause and mover explains that existence of the universe.
Aquinas put forward in his book Summa Theologica ‘five ways’ in which he attempted to prove the existence of God a posteriori (empirical experience).
The first three ways make up the Cosmological argument.
Way One - The Argument from Motion
Aquinas adapts Aristotle's ideas of motus. For Aquinas, motion means change from potentiality to actuality.
Aquinas argued that nothing can move or change by itself; there cannot be an infinite regress (a chain of events going backwards forever) of movers. Therefore, there must be an unmoved mover which itself cannot be changed or moved but which started the chain of movement and change. He called this unmoved mover God.
Premise 1: We experience motion
Premise 2: A thing cannot move itself, motion is the reduction of potentiality to actuality
Premise 3: Only something actually moving can move something potentially moving
Premise 4: Infinite regression is impossible as without a first motion there would be no motion at all
Premise 5: There must be an unmoved first mover
Conclusion: This is what we call God
Way Two - The Argument from Cause
Aquinas explained that everything within the universe is the result of a succession of causes. As nothing can cause itself (a logical impossibility), there cannot be an infinite regression of causes. There must be a first cause which is itself uncaused that began the chain of cause and effect. Aquinas called this uncaused causer God.
Premise 1: We experience cause and effect
Premise 2: A think cannot cause itself
Premise 3: Only a prior event can cause a later effect
Premise 4: Infinite regression is impossible as there would be no first cause
Premise 5: There must be a first cause which is itself uncaused
Conclusion: This is what we call God
Way Three - The Argument from Contingency
Everything in the universe is contingent (can exist or not exist; relies on something outside of itself for its existence). If things something do not exist, it is possible that there was a time when nothing existed. There must have been a different type of being, a necessary being (cannot not exist; does not rely on anything else for its existence) that brought things into existence. Aquinas calls this necessary being God.
Premise 1: We experience things that are not necessary to exist
Premise 2: A think that is contingent cannot explain itself
Premise 3: There must be a necessary thing to bring about a contingent one
Premise 4: Infinite regression is impossible as you have not explained anything
Premise 5: There must be a necessary being
Conclusion: This is what we call God
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths
Aquinas is convincing because as he says in Way One, we can observe motion and change in the universe.
In Way Two, we can observe cause and effect in the world.
In Way three, we can observe things that are contingent and rely on things to exist.
From observations, we can infer that there must be a first mover, causer and necessary being that we could call God.
Aquinas seeks not only to explain how the universe exists but why.
It gives an explanation
We seek an explanation of everything else, so why not the universe? If there is an explanation, it is possible that it could be God.
It fits with the Ontological Argument
It can be seen as part of the cumulative argument. If you take all the arguments together, it is more likely that God exists.
Science supports the view the universe has a beginning
Modern cosmology suggests that the Big Bang Theory implies a finite past history of the universe. Support for this theory includes evidence that the universe is expanding, which suggests that it had a starting point.
Philosophy supports the view that the universe had a beginning
If the universe had no beginning, then an actual infinite number of past moments of the universe’s history have elapsed and they are being added to as times goes on. You cannot add to an infinite number of things. Yet the universe continues to exist. Moments continue to be added. This implies the universe had a beginning.
Not a contradiction
It is not a contradiction to argue that everything has a cause except God. God is not one more thing in a line of causes. God is of a totally different order and is not subject to the same conditions as the universe.
Weaknesses
It is just as reasonable to assume that there could be an infinite regress of movers/changes rather than an unmoved mover who started the chain of movement.
It is possible that what we understand to be cause and effect is more like a correlation than cause.
Aquinas makes a leap in logic; just because things within the universe are contingent, it does not mean that the universe is also contingent.
Another assumption is the idea of a God or necessary being. Could the necessary being be something other than God?
Existentialists would argue that asking why the universe existences is an unanswerable question.
Kant examined the argument of the existence of a supreme being as a first cause of the universe. He argued the idea that every event must have a first cause only applied to the world of sense experience. It cannot apply to something that we have no experience of. Kant did not accept any justification for the conclusion that God caused the universe to begin. Kant would not accept it as valid to extend the knowledge we do possess to question that transcend our experience. God would be a causal being outside space and time as we understand it. Therefore, it would be impossible for people to have any knowledge of what God created or of God Himself.
Russell rejected the Cosmological Argument on three grounds:
He rejected the principle of sufficient reason: Russell changed the view that the universe required an explanation. He argued to talk of the cause of the universe was meaningless as its existence was a ‘brute fact’. ‘The universe is just there, and that’s all’.
He rejected the idea of moving from individual causes to a causes for the totality: Like Hume, Russell said that you cannot go from saying that every event has a cause to saying that the universe has a cause. ‘…every man who exists has a mother… therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn’t a mother – that’s a different logical sphere.’
He rejected the notion of a necessary being: Russell claimed that the word ‘necessary’ could not meaningfully be applied to things. To say something is necessary is to claim that it must exist. However, Russell argued the word existence if not an additional property. ‘…and it raises the question of what one means by existence, I think a subject named can never be significantly said to exist but only a subject described.’
Hume's Criticisms of Cosmological Arguments
Cause and Effect
Hume claims that inductive (collected from observations and experiences) reasoning can only lead to a probable conclusion. We cannot know things for sure. Hume argues that even though we have observed cause and effect in some parts of nature, it does not mean that we can extend that principle to everything in the universe. If we do this, we are making an inductive assumption. His example of the billiard balls suggests that we cannot infer knowledge of the motion of X from the motion of Y as the two motions are completely different.
Infinite Regression
Hume argues that the notion of infinite regression is not a contradiction and is theoretically acceptable. The need for a first mover is unnecessary. Many classical and modern scientists have theorised that the universe is infinite with no actual beginning. As Russell argues, the universe is a brute fact.
Need for a Sufficient Reason
Hume also challenges the need for a first cause by undermining the notion that there needs to be a sufficient reason. This is the issue of aggregates and leads to a category error. For example, every human has a mother, every human belongs to the universe, but this does not mean the universe has a mother.
Need for a Necessary Being
Hume challenges the notion that we can ever talk about God as a necessary being. He argues that no existence can be considered necessary; you cannot move from de dicto to de re. Anything that ou can imagine existing, you can also imagine not existing.
Wider Reading for the Cosmological Argument
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
The Kalam argument originated in the Islamic Kalam School of philosophy but has been updated recently by the American philosopher, William Lane Craig.
It is an a posteriori argument - this means that it takes experience in the world as a starting point.
The Kalam argument has three steps:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe has a cause for its existence.
It is difficult to prove (1), although one may feel that it is intuitively probable. Craig says: "...it is so intuitively obvious that I think scarcely anyone could sincerely believe it to be false" yet some hold that at the micro-particle level there are uncaused events and if even ONE beginning could be shown not to have a cause, then premise (1) is false and the argument collapses.
Paul Davies (Simon and Schuster New York, 1984 p. 200) has argued that this assumption is false as it appears that electrons can pass out of existence at one point and re-appear somewhere else. Craig has replied to this saying that this does not affect the Kalam argument, as in modern physics a vacuum is not nothing, but rather a state of minimal energy. The electron fluctuations, he holds, are due to vacuum fluctuations and the vacuum needs to exist for electrons to exist so electrons are not coming into existence from nothing as his critics maintain.
Step (2) is difficult to prove but if the Universe did originate in a 'Big Bang' then this would support this premise. At the Big Bang, the initial singularity exploded at a rate faster than the speed of light. Nuclear explosions took place which caused concentrations of hydrogen and helium and some of the lithium found in inter-stellar space. Time and space also came into existence with the initial explosion and the background radiation in the Universe is a residue from this original "Big Bang". However, there are other theories for the origin of the Universe including the idea of matter continuously coming into existence and the issue is by no means yet decided.
If (1) and (2) are accepted, then (3) follows from it. Even if this is accepted, however, there is an implicit fourth premise in the argument namely:
4. The cause of the existence of the Universe is God.
This is sometimes thought to be obvious but it may be that there could be other causes. For instance if the Universe expands and contracts, expands and contracts and goes on doing this indefinitely, then the singularity which is the Big Bang may have resulted from a previous Universe collapsing in on itself and this Universe being formed by a new explosion.
One problem with the Kalam argument is that it can be argued that whatever caused the Universe to begin to exist may no longer itself be in existence. However, the argument maintains that the cause of the Universe, being outside space and time (which came into existence with the Universe) must beunchanging and necessarily existent. If this cause cannot change, then it cannot go out of existence.
Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell
Fredrick Copleston reformulated Aquinas’ argument by concentrating on contingency. He proposed his argument in a BBC radio debate in 1947:
There are things in this world that are contingent – they might not have existed e.g. we would not exist without our parents
All things in the world are like this: everything depends on something else for it’s existence
Therefore there must be a cause of everything in the universe that exists outside of it
This cause must be a necessary being: one which contains the reason for it’s existence inside itself
This necessary being is God
In 1948 Copleston and Bertrand Russell had a famous radio debate, where Copleston proposed his argument. The two men agreed on a definition of God as a ‘supreme personal being – distinct from the world and creator of the world’.
Russell, however, refused to accept the terminology that Copleston was using – he did not accept the notion of a necessary being (beings that cannot be thought not to exist). He thought that the universe was just a brute fact and needed no explanation for its existence – “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all”. Russell then went on to explain:
Turning to 20th Century developments in theoretical physics to support his case, Russell noted that physicists assure us that individual quantum transitions in atoms have no cause: “A physicist looks for causes; that does not necessarily imply that there are causes everywhere. A man may look for gold without assuming that there is gold everywhere; if he finds gold, well and good, if he doesn't he's had bad luck. The same is true when the physicists look for causes”.
Copleston replied that scientific research proved the opposite. “The physicist presupposes... that there is some sense in investigating nature and looking for the causes of events, just as the detective presupposes that there is some sense in looking for the cause of a murder”
Russell saw the argument for a cause of the universe as having little meaning or significance. He established it as a “question that has no meaning” and thus proposed: “Shall we pass on to some other issue?” Copleston’s response to Russell’s refusal to accept the importance of the issue was to claim: “… If one refuses to sit at the chess board and make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated.”
Gottfried Leibniz – The Principle of Sufficient Reason
In 1710, Leibniz accepted the Cosmological Argument because he believed that there had to be ‘sufficient reason’ for the universe to exist. He did not accept that it was uncaused.
‘Suppose the book of geometry to have been eternal, one copy having been written down from an earlier one. It is evident that even though a reason can be given for the present book out of a past one, we should never come to a full reason.
What is true of books, is also true of the states of the world. If you suppose the world eternal, you will suppose nothing but a succession of states and will not find in any of them a sufficient reason.’
Leibniz argued that there is an explanation for everything, whether we know it or not. The world does not appear to contain within itself the reason for its own existence, and so the answer must lie outside of it. Therefore, God exists as the sufficient reason for why the universe exists.
Richard Swinburne more recently argued that the real need for an explanation lies in the fact that it is more likely that there be nothing rather than something.
‘It’s extraordinary that there should exist anything at all. Surely, the most natural state of affairs is simply nothing: no universe, no God, nothing. But there is something. And so many things. Maybe chance could have thrown up the odd electron. But so many particles! Not everything will have an explanation. But… the whole progress of science and all other intellectual enquiry demands that we postulate the smallest number of brute facts. If we can explain the many bits of the universe by one simple being which keeps them in existence, we should do so – even if inevitably we cannot explain the existence of that simple being.’