The Strength of the Teological Argument due to Science
Science does give us more and more information about the universe, but
it doesn’t believe in God or god as the designer of the universe as
there is no scientific evidence for the existent of God. But learning
more about the universe does show us that there is an order in the
universe, which strengthens the teological argument.
The Design argument is a theory based on the idea that everything in
the Universe is ordered. It is also known as the Teological argument,
derived from the Greek word "telos" meaning "end" or "purpose." The
basic and fundamental proposal of the design argument is that because
of the apparent order that is present in the Universe and on earth, we
must conclude that there is an element of design involved. To design
something, it is logical to think that there must be a designer. This
designer is God. The idea of God being the designer of the universe in
this teological argument is something that hasn’t been scientifically
proven therefore science disagrees with the idea.
The design argument is spilt into two parts; design qua regularity and
design qua purpose. Design qua regularity argues that the order and
regularity evident in the universe is proof of a designer. For example
a formal garden shows evidence of a Gardner because of its order- the
way it has been weeded and the way the flowers have been arranged.
There is also order and regularity in the universe, for example the
way the different planets rotate. Philosophers say this proves that it
cannot have been just random chance.
Design qua purpose looks at the evidence of design in terms of how all
...
... middle of paper ...
... to change your beliefs. I.e. it
won't convince an atheist. However, the idea of the universe just
being here, a brute fact, a product of blind chance and nothing more
is a personally unsatisfactory one due to the extraordinary nature of
the universe and so whist the Design Argument may not conclusively
prove the existence of God it suggests that the existence of a
Designer, who we know as God, is a more probable likelihood than not.
Science shows the design of the universe. Science strengthens the
design argument as it shows us more and more information about the
universe. Therefore there is even more reason for believing that there
was and is a designer who planned and created the universe. But there
is no proof that the designer is
God.
In 1986, Richard Dawkins suggested that Paley's "design" argument might have been the best explanation in the 19th century for the existence of God and the intelligent design of the universe in his novel The Blind Watchmaker. Although Paley succeeded in making his argument, Dawkins argued that it had one major defect; the explanation itself. “Paley’s argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of his day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong.” (Dawkins : 606) Paley gave the traditional religious answer to who our designer is: God.
According to Philo Cleanthes’s argument of design does not work because it is a bad comparison. Arguing that the universe is like a machine as imaginative as it may seem, does not work, because it is a comparison of a part of a whole and that is problematic because there is no way to compare a part of something, to that something is part of that something is completely unknown. By saying “observing the growth of a hair, can we learn anything concerning the generation of a man?” in page 24, Philo reveals a fatal weakness in Cleanthes’s comparison. Just like it is impossible to know the generation of a human being by observing how his hair grows, it is impossible to understand the universe in its entirety by understanding how a machine. Philo contends that Cleanthes’s comparison may be too narrow for a universe with so much diversity, in page 25 “When nature has so extremely diversified her manner of operation in this small globe; can we imagine that she incessantly copies herself throughout so immense a
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’s teleological argument (also known as the argument from design) is an attempt to prove the existence of god. This argument succeeds in proving that while existence was created by an aggregation of forces, to define these forces, as a conscious, rational, and ultimately godlike is dubious. Although the conclusions are valid, the argument makes several logical errors. The teleological argument relies on inductive reasoning, rendering the argument itself valid, but unsound. The argument fails to apply its own line of reasoning to itself, resulting in infinite regression. Beyond the scope of its logical flaws, the arguments content lacks accurate comparisons. The argument hinges on a watch metaphor, and as will be shown, this metaphor will prove inaccurate in explaining the creation of the universe.
An argument is defined as presenting reasons for a conclusion in order to convince an audience of a certain point of view and an explanation as a clarification of why something has happened. An argument contains some form of an opinion while an explanation holds only facts, this does not mean that a well-constructed argument is not without facts. The second piece, Lisa Fullam’s, Of God and the Case for Unintelligent Design is evidently the argument. The title itself, “unintelligent design” proves this reasoning, she provides facts/reasoning for her audience to believe that the notion of intelligent design is unintelligent in and of itself because nature has too many flaws. Fullam provides facts about rabbit digestion, horse digestion, mammalian testicles, and human back ache followed by her opinions. First, to Elizabeth Bumiller, who doesn’t take a side while providing facts for each side, Fullam feelings strong about her opinions, her sarcastic questions help the audience tap
The argument from design or the teleological argument points to the existence of order and direction in nature to a kind of purpose. The argument essentially proves the existence of God. A designer must exist because the universe and living things exhibit marks of design in their complexity. Design-type arguments are unproblematic when based upon things nature plainly could not or would not produce, like human artifacts. If designs entail a designer, and the universe shows marks of design, then the universe was created. An intelligent designer is an entity that the intelligent design movement argues had some role in the development of life. Essentially, the claim being made is that certain aspects of the universe are too perfectly arranged to have not happened because of a supernatural being called God.
The Intelligent Design Theory says that intelligent causes are necessary to explain the complicated structures of biology and that these causes are analytically evident. Certain biological features defy the random-chance explanation because they appear to have been designed. Since design logically requires an intelligent designer, the appearance of design means there is evidence for a designer.
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”.
Fist we must understand what the design argument is based on? It is based on intelligent order simply the theory claiming the universe is designed in order to prove that it is the work of a designer in this case God. Scriptures try to tie itself with the design argument for example “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19-21). This in essence is saying God exist through his creations even if man doesn’t see it. Hume’s however does not agree with the scripture, his argument is simple, how can someone argue God exist if he or she were not present to witness the creation. He uses the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge for example; "George Bush Jr. reigned from 2001 to 2009." This is something (if true) that one must come to know a posterior, because it expresses an empirical fact unknowable without prior knowledge. By contrast, consider the proposition, "If George Bush reigned at all, then he reigned for at least a day." This is something th...
Talking on both sides of the debate, each side feels as though the other has no scientific reasoning come up with their theory. In reading the article written by Shipman, the evolutionists believe that intelligent design has no concrete evidence on how the world was crea...
When Copernicus and Galileo voiced their observations opposing the Catholic Church, Copernicus and Galileo were labeled as a threat for a couple reasons. For example, Copernicus and Galileo’s observations did not support the Catholic Church’s teachings. Copernicus and Galileo discovered that the sun does not revolve around the Earth but that the Earth revolves around the sun. The Church believed that “Only God knows how he created the universe,” (Gascoigne) so there was no way that Copernicus and Galileo could know that the Earth revolves around the sun. In the Bible it says, “The world also is stablished, and it cannot be moved.” (The Book) This was interpreted by the Church to mean that Earth cannot move, therefore the sun must be moving. About this matter, Leo XIII stated, “Truth cannot contradict truth, and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself,” which, in turn lead the Church believe that Copernicus and Galileo were heretics (Breshears). Also, Copernicus and Galileo’s observations were different than what the Church, its followers, and the rest of the world were used to. Aristotle, an influential Greek philosopher, had taught that the Earth was stationary and, for 1,800 years, it was common belief (Miller). No one had enough courage to risk the Catholic Church’s wrath and provide new ideas about the universe until Copernicus in 1543 (Miller). In conclusion, the Church had reason to consider Copernicus and Galileo as threats.
The Fear of Science To live in the today's world is to be surrounded by the products of science. For it is science that gave our society color television, the bottle of aspirin, and the polyester shirt. Thus, science has greatly enhanced our society; yet, our society is still afraid of the effects of science. This fear of science can be traced back to the nineteenth century, where scientists had to be secretive in experimenting with science. Although science did wonders in the nineteenth century, many people feared science and its effects because of the uncertainty of the results of science.
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
Nature of science or NOS is a term that refers to the epistemic knowledge of science, the knowledge of constructs and values that are intrinsic to the subject. The constructs and values include historical groundwork to scientific discovery and social incorporation such as sociology, philosophy, and history of science (“Nature of Science”). Nature of science, in my opinion, should not be explicitly taught in high school science curriculum. The basis for my standing on the issue is representative of the lack of a fundamental standard understanding of what Nature of Science is, as well as the lack of effectiveness in explicitly teaching Nature of Science which I will expand on further in
Science even proves that there was a divine creator present when the world was first designed and when life first appeared on earth.