Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strengths and weaknesses to the teleological argument
Strengths and weaknesses to the teleological argument
Strengths and weaknesses to the teleological argument
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Confirming the character of a teleological system is to assert that the system evolves for a purpose he knows and because research from the outset, it has been designed with this purpose. In this way, we can say that all the instruments designed by humans have a life or teleological teleonomic. A calculating machine was designed from the start to calculate. Computing capacity is not born of chance which would have presided over the assembly of its parts. The teleological principle takes on added meaning when applied to biological evolution or the evolution of the universe. It introduces a change in the principle of necessity, since it says it is by necessity that evolution borrows the path it takes.
Of course, the teleological principle can be formulated in various ways and the modern teleology does not resemble the teleology of the seventeenth century. The sources of the teleological argument is found in Aristotle and especially in his theory of final causes. This explains why the teleological argument was ignored in the Christian philosophy until rediscovered by Thomas Aquinas and Thomism displace Augustinist currents. It was not until the seventeenth century, promoted by the substitution of a mechanistic model to model organicist prevailing hitherto, the use of teleological arguments will multiply. Galileo, Kepler, Bacon, Gassendi, Descartes and Harvey have all had recourse to teleological arguments.
The teleological argument has often been used by theologians to show that the universe obeys a grand design that may have been ordained by God according to a purpose which is the salvation of man. This is precisely what has made the teleological principle suspect in the eyes of many scientists.
From the seventeenth centur...
... middle of paper ...
...eological argument in the context of science seemed condemned by the progress of human knowledge. Much scientific progress has been achieved by the substitution of non-teleological theories to teleological theories. The suspicion of teleological theories was even greater than we could ever suspect that those who resorted to do so for reasons other than scientific and this way will reintroduce religion or metaphysics in science.
This perspective has changed with the realization that the use of teleological arguments could in some areas of physics have a higher predictive capacity for non-teleological arguments with a remarkable economy of means. However, as its results are more related to the use of strong Anthropic principle that the only use of a teleological argument, we will return it when we analyzed all the other constituents of the Anthropic principle.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
The intricacy of a simple time telling device has sparked controversy about the creation of the universe. In William Paley’s “The Analogical Teleological Argument” he argues that the universe must have been created by a universe maker, God, due to its complexity. However, David Hume, provides an empiricist objection by arguing that one cannot prove the existence of a universe maker due to lack of experience regarding the creation of a universe. Ultimately, I will argue that Paley’s argument by design is not sufficient for proving God 's existence because, as individuals, we cannot assume that the world works the way we wish it.
In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Aristotle’s argument from Physics Book 2, chapter 8, 199a9. Aristotle in this chapter tries to make an analogy between nature and action to establish that both, nature and action, have an end.
The teleological argument begins by stating a special kind of argument, an a posteriori argument. An a posteriori argument is an argument based on the knowledge of experiences encountered in the world. For Paley, the a posteriori argument is established as he imagines himself nature walking, only to stumble upon a watch: a pocket watch, whose function is made visible through a transparent glass and made possible through gears and springs. Paley retrieves the watch and questions how such an object came to be in the middle of vegetation and is easily intrigued to reflect about the nature of the watch. Let us reflect about the physical attributes of the watch. Imagine for a second that the body of the watch was covered in highly polished gold metal and in the middle of its body laid a transparent glass. The glass lets us see two disproportionate metallic rods whose ends are encrusted with small diamonds. Apart from ...
... uses the lack of proof of Gods existence for God’s existence. This then essentially leads to a battle between science and religion on the idea of whether or not God can be proven to exist and whether that proof is essential to determine if science or religion has the right answer.
In Life of the Cosmos, Lee Smolin’s main criticism for the Weak Anthropic Principle is that it does not give a prediction that can be falsified by observation. Smolin applies this same criticism toward its postulates and asserts cosmological natural selection as a superior concept (Smolin 203-204). My paper will explain Smolin’s criticism toward the Anthropic Principle and its postulates while comparing them to cosmological natural selection. I will then argue that Smolin’s criticism of the Anthropic Principle is valid but misleading and his assertion of cosmological natural selection is only better scientifically; not in application.
The cosmological argument is the existence of God, arguing that the possibility of each existing and the domain collected of such elements in this universe. The inquiry is that 'for what reason does anything exist? Why as opposed to nothing? In this paper, I will explain for what reason does everything need cause? Why is God thought to be the principal cause?
If fine-tuning is to provide evidence for the intelligent design of the universe, it seems that arguments based in probabilistic reasoning are not the most tenable due to the many objections raised throughout this essay. While fine-tuning may very well serve as evidence for intelligent design, the proponents of such a view must either form a novel argument that does not rely on probability theory as the current Fine-Tuning Argument has or find a way to resolve the probabilistic paradoxes that the current argument has been plagued with.
This paper discusses how cosmology and how philosophy can be connected to one another. In order to explain this reason, the paper is broken down into three subtitles which are: metaphysics, religion, and ontology. Each part connects to cosmology in one term or another. In each subtopic, it will discuss the topic, its background in the philosophical review. As a result, in the conclusion, it will discuss how cosmology compares to them all.
Aristotle’s theory of natural law, discussed in Niocmachean Ethics, is mainly teleological because he focuses on the end of all our actions, and how they should lean to happiness. He believed that there were four causes to every object in the world including humans. These were the, material cause – out of what the object was composed of, the efficient cause – what is recognized as being part of the object, the formal cause – the purpose, end, goal or aim of the object. For example, the material cause of a spoon would be metal, the efficient cause would be its shape and structure, the formal cause would be a factory and the final cause would be to use for eating. For Aristotle, the final cause was the most important for humans because it focuses...
There are several forms of the design argument. The general form of the design argument starts with the basic idea that certain parts of the universe are such that they indicate that they have been designed and have a purpose. The argument uses this fact to prove the existence of an ultimate designer, in particular, God.
William Paley and David Hume’s argument over God’s existence is known as the teleological argument, or the argument from design. Arguments from design are arguments concerning God or some type of creator’s existence based on the ideas of order or purpose in universe. Hume takes on the approach of arguing against the argument of design, while Paley argues for it. Although Hume and Paley both provide very strong arguments, a conclusion will be drawn at the end to distinguish which philosophiser holds a stronger position. Throughout this essay I will be examining arguments with reference to their work from Paley’s “The Watch and the Watchmaker” and Hume’s “The Critique of the Teleological Argument”.
The factual nature of God (given that He exists as the First Cause) is at all times argued by most Christians. Moreover numerous questions arise on the nature of God. We all know that, at some point we will actually die; yet, we consistently refuse the causes operating within ourselves that looks into the real result of what comes after a person loses his or her life. It is far simpler for humankind to agree that, they will depart to a secure home in Heaven and will be pardoned all their sins by a supreme being, rather than to query on the existence of the extremely all-powerful being. Luckily, some of us usually query this existence and the development of humankind; in addition to, the spiritual lessons obtained from our mothers and fathers, community and religion. This essay investigates the two logical justifications for and against the nature of God; in accordance to opinions of some exceptional researchers and philosophers. Through two classical arguments for God; the ontological argument and the teleological argument, I will show that there is no adequate evidence or extensive justifications for the true nature of God.
The thesis of this essay is that philosophy is at an important crossroads at the end of the twentieth century in its role as paideia—philosophy educating humanity. An unprecedented challenge and opportunity for philosophy today is to mediate, and enhance understanding of the relationship, between science, ethics and faith. A central question arises: What can philosophy contribute to the emerging dialogue between science and theology? The emerging science-theology dialogue is characterized by complexity and considerable confusion regarding proper methodologies, goals, and possible interactions. There are at least three major schools, model...
Moritz Schlick believed the all important attempts at establishing a theory of knowledge grow out of the doubt of the certainty of human knowledge. This problem originates in the wish for absolute certainty. A very important idea is the concept of "protocol statements", which are "...statements which express the facts with absolute simplicity, without any moulding, alteration, or addition, in whose elaboration every science consists, and which precede all knowing, every judgment regarding the world." (1) It makes no sense to speak of uncertain facts, only assertions and our knowledge can be uncertain. If we succeed therefore in expressing the raw facts in protocol statements without any contamination, these appear to be the absolutely indubitable starting points of all knowledge. They are again abandoned, but they constitute a firm basis "...to which all our cognitions owe whatever validity they may possess." (2) Math is stated indirectly into protocol statements which are resolved into definite protocol statements which one could formulate exactly, in principle, but with tremendous effort. Knowledge in life and science in some sense begins with confirmation of facts, and the protocol statements stand at the beginning of science. In the event that protocol statements would be distinguished by definite logical properties, structure, position in the system of science, and one would be confronted with the task of actually specifying these properties. We fin...