Arguments based on observation
A posteriori reasoning: reasoning that uses observation or experience to reach
conclusions
Perhaps the most obvious way to explore the existence of God is to look around
ourselves and decide whether what we see (observe) points to God in some
way.
This approach is known as a posteriori
The two arguments are:
1. The teleological argument
2. The cosmological argument
Possible questions
Whether a posteriori or a priori is the more persuasive style of argument
Whether or not teleological arguments can be defended against the
challenge of ‘chance’
Whether cosmological arguments simply jump to the conclusion of a
transcendent creator without sufficient explanation
Whether or not there are logical fallacies in these arguments that cannot be
overcome
Aquinas’ teleological argument – The Fifth Way
Teleological: to do with somethings purpose or goal or end point
The teleological argument looks at the purpose of something and from that he
reasons that God must exist.
Aquinas gave five ways of proving God exists and his teleological argument is
the fifth of these ways.
The focus for Aquinas is on how we achieve our purpose – it must be due to God
Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle believed that all things have a purpose, but we
cannot achieve that purpose without something to make it happen – some sort
of guide which is God.
His argument
He says that things that lack knowledge (e.g., natural bodies) act for a
purpose/end (this is his observation from which now he will reason).
This acting for an end always leads to the best result
This must happen, not by luck but by design (here design means intention or by
deliberate act)
Anything that lacks knowledge needs something with knowledge to guide it –
just like an arrow needs an archer to get it to its target
Therefore, there is an intelligent being that directs all natural things to their
end.
This being is God.
, He says that no non-living thing can have its own purpose; the river cannot decide to
flow out to the sea because a river has no mind, and yet it does. The sun cannot
decide to rise in the morning and to make each day the right length, but it does.
Aquinas used the example of an arrow. If we saw an arrow flying towards a target we
would know that someone must have aimed and fired it. In the same way, when we
look at the world around us and the purposiveness of inanimate objects, we can
conclude that the guiding hand of God must be behind it.
So, for Aquinas, the world is governed by God, who is the guiding force
that makes things achieve their purpose deliberately – natural bodies
are all things less of intelligence than God.
Arguments from analogy
The use by Aquinas of an illustration (his archer and arrow) is the first example
of a number of analogies.
Aquinas’ point is that in the same way that the archer guides the arrow to where
it is meant to go, God guides natural bodies to where they are meant to go
The natural body needs to get to its purpose, just like the arrow needs to get to
its target – the arrow needs an archer and the natural body needs something to
direct it and this is God (Zeno)
SYNOPTIC LINK: Aquinas also believed that analogy was the best way to
describe God using language.
Some argue that arguments from analogy are weak – at best, they can only
suggest something probably shares a characteristic – is it valid to compare the
relationship between humans and God to the relationship between an arrow and
an archer?
Paley’s teleological argument
Regularity
Paley observed that complex objects work with regularity
The seasons of the year happen with order, the planets rotate with order,
gravity works with order
This order seems to be the result of the work of a designer who has put this
regularity and order into place deliberately
Purpose
In addition, the way things work seems to have been put together deliberately,
with a purpose.
The eye seemed to Paley to have been constructed deliberately with the
purpose to see.
The wings of a bird operate with such intricacy and with the purpose to aid
flight that there seems to be a designer behind them
Cells are so intricate that there seems to be a purpose behind them
For Paley, all this pointed to a designer, who is God.
Intricacy
A posteriori reasoning: reasoning that uses observation or experience to reach
conclusions
Perhaps the most obvious way to explore the existence of God is to look around
ourselves and decide whether what we see (observe) points to God in some
way.
This approach is known as a posteriori
The two arguments are:
1. The teleological argument
2. The cosmological argument
Possible questions
Whether a posteriori or a priori is the more persuasive style of argument
Whether or not teleological arguments can be defended against the
challenge of ‘chance’
Whether cosmological arguments simply jump to the conclusion of a
transcendent creator without sufficient explanation
Whether or not there are logical fallacies in these arguments that cannot be
overcome
Aquinas’ teleological argument – The Fifth Way
Teleological: to do with somethings purpose or goal or end point
The teleological argument looks at the purpose of something and from that he
reasons that God must exist.
Aquinas gave five ways of proving God exists and his teleological argument is
the fifth of these ways.
The focus for Aquinas is on how we achieve our purpose – it must be due to God
Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle believed that all things have a purpose, but we
cannot achieve that purpose without something to make it happen – some sort
of guide which is God.
His argument
He says that things that lack knowledge (e.g., natural bodies) act for a
purpose/end (this is his observation from which now he will reason).
This acting for an end always leads to the best result
This must happen, not by luck but by design (here design means intention or by
deliberate act)
Anything that lacks knowledge needs something with knowledge to guide it –
just like an arrow needs an archer to get it to its target
Therefore, there is an intelligent being that directs all natural things to their
end.
This being is God.
, He says that no non-living thing can have its own purpose; the river cannot decide to
flow out to the sea because a river has no mind, and yet it does. The sun cannot
decide to rise in the morning and to make each day the right length, but it does.
Aquinas used the example of an arrow. If we saw an arrow flying towards a target we
would know that someone must have aimed and fired it. In the same way, when we
look at the world around us and the purposiveness of inanimate objects, we can
conclude that the guiding hand of God must be behind it.
So, for Aquinas, the world is governed by God, who is the guiding force
that makes things achieve their purpose deliberately – natural bodies
are all things less of intelligence than God.
Arguments from analogy
The use by Aquinas of an illustration (his archer and arrow) is the first example
of a number of analogies.
Aquinas’ point is that in the same way that the archer guides the arrow to where
it is meant to go, God guides natural bodies to where they are meant to go
The natural body needs to get to its purpose, just like the arrow needs to get to
its target – the arrow needs an archer and the natural body needs something to
direct it and this is God (Zeno)
SYNOPTIC LINK: Aquinas also believed that analogy was the best way to
describe God using language.
Some argue that arguments from analogy are weak – at best, they can only
suggest something probably shares a characteristic – is it valid to compare the
relationship between humans and God to the relationship between an arrow and
an archer?
Paley’s teleological argument
Regularity
Paley observed that complex objects work with regularity
The seasons of the year happen with order, the planets rotate with order,
gravity works with order
This order seems to be the result of the work of a designer who has put this
regularity and order into place deliberately
Purpose
In addition, the way things work seems to have been put together deliberately,
with a purpose.
The eye seemed to Paley to have been constructed deliberately with the
purpose to see.
The wings of a bird operate with such intricacy and with the purpose to aid
flight that there seems to be a designer behind them
Cells are so intricate that there seems to be a purpose behind them
For Paley, all this pointed to a designer, who is God.
Intricacy
