More handpicked essays just for you.
Scientific inquiry method
Assignment on scientific research methodology
Assignment on scientific research methodology
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Second Paper
“I shall briefly explain how I conceive this matter. Look round the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects
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
Philo on the other hands contends that Cleanthes cannot objectively make that claim. Philo recognizes the problems that Cleanthes’s argument of design brings by being a priori, he recognizes how the causes and effects affect the overall argument made by Cleanthes and is able to pin point where it was this was problematic, that order may not necessarily exist due to an intelligent designer, and that since humans where not all knowing like God there were some aspects that Cleanthes argues are just impossible to know with their limited intellect. In part 2 Philo effectively communicates to Cleanthes that his claims could be reduced to speculation as opposed to being regarded as matters of
Paley’s claims that the universe must have an intelligent maker due to the complexity of its design. His primary
To infer God’s existence by ‘Argument from Design’, Rachel has taken the example of amazing things that are present in nature around us such as eye, the most complicated part of body system, the way eye is attached to the human body and the phenomenon by which it performs it function is astounding and such types of creations cannot be occurred randomly by chance. Although, it is only the creation of some intelligent designer. Whereas, in the case of evolution and intelligent design, the author put forward the “Theory of Natural Selection” given by Darwin. In this theory, Darwin stated that evolution occurred among the species due to the changes in their environmental conditions and to adopt these changes, certain changes take place among the specific characteristics of the species in response to such environmental conditions. Therefore, through the process of natural selection, organisms passed their newly adapted characteristics to their off springs and then new generations born with such characteristics which help them to survive and reproduce in altered environmental conditions.
Our awareness, our perception within nature, as Thomas states, is the contrast that segregates us from our symbols. It is the quality that separates us from our reflections, from the values and expectations that society has oppressed against itself. However, our illusions and hallucinations of nature are merely artifacts of our anthropocentric idealism. Thomas, in “Natural Man,” criticizes society for its flawed value-thinking, advocating how it “[is merely] a part of a system . . . [and] we are, in this view, neither owners nor operators; at best, [are] motile tissues specialized for receiving information” (56). We “spread like a new growth . . . touching and affecting every other kind of life, incorporating ourselves,” destroying the nature we coexist with, “[eutrophizing] the earth” (57). However, Thomas questions if “we are the invaded ones, the subjugated, [the] used?” (57). Due to our anthropocentric idealism, our illusions and hallucinations of nature, we forget that we, as organisms, are microscopically inexistent. To Thomas, “we are not made up, as we had always supposed, of successively enriched packets of our own parts,” but rather “we are shared, rented, occupied [as] the interior of our cells, driving them, providing the oxidative energy that sends us out for the improvement of each shining day, are the mitochondria” (1).
In the above essay, I presented the opposing views of William Paley and Bertrand Russell on the design argument. I then compared and contrasted the arguments showing that the arguments mostly differed. Finally, I evaluated the two philosophers' arguments and concluded that Paley's design argument was stronger than Russell's argument against it because Paley developed the support for his claims more thoroughly.
One of the key questions raised by Rupert Sheldrake in the Seven Experiments That Could Change the World, is are we more than the ghost in the machine? It is perfectly acceptable to Sheldrake that humans are more than their brain, and because of this, and in actual reality “the mind is indeed extended beyond the brain, as most people throughout most of human history have believed.” (Sheldrake, Seven Experiments 104)
It is evident that things do not come to exist out of just anything; each comes into being out of particular things—fruit from the tree, tree from the seed, seed from the fruit; bird from the egg, egg from the bird. It cannot be, therefore, that things come to exist out of nothing, out of what is not, for were that so, things could come to be out of anything. I am not convinced: yes, it is evident that some kinds of things have again and again come into being out of particular things; so, we might well argue that these things do not come into being out of nothing. But is it evident that all things are alike in this? Perhaps some things do come into existence out of nothing: the possibility still pesters physicists today. It is supposed necessary by the Epicureans that particular conditions of generation correspond with particular kinds of things, and that all things of every kind are alike in this—not a ridiculous supposition, but surely not evident. This, I should want to add, is not an ‘implicit appeal to the principle of sufficient reason’, for that would entail questions about what function corresponds to the conditions of generation—what function has the egg if not the generation of a bird? We might answer that eggs are a function of animal nutrition ...
Polkinghorne describes as “…see[ing] the world as creation is to believe that the mind of God lies behind its marvelous order and the will of God behind its fruitful history.” (555). He also believes that it is the human mind that makes the necessary and sometimes illogical leaps that has made science possible, and although science cannot explain the mind, it can be explained because humans are made in God’s image. These leaps are made so that humans can have some understanding of the world they live in, and even to see the universe as a creation and see the intelligent design woven into its fabric is not establishing that the divine being that created the universe plays with each part separately. Polkinghorne sees this as assuming God as a “grand Ordainer”, which does not control everything, but instead gives it the potential, within
...onversation among three individuals who have different beliefs. The aspect of the argument of design is an important one because it sheds light on Hume’s belief once Philo and Demea prove that the argument is weak. Cleanthes’ argument is an a posteriori argument (or empirical argument), which is an argument that solely relies on past experience and reason rather than faith or nature. Cleanthes tried to prove God’s nature through “past experience,” but because God is a deity and is not able to be seen, it is impossible to base his nature on past experience. His argument is certainly not believable, but Philo and Demea’s criticisms make sense and prove that the argument is weak. Since religion is so complex, there are bound to be things that are not going to be answered, including God’s nature. Hume’s Dialogues makes this evident and provides more food for thought.
Man is the product of heredity and environment and that he acts as his machine responds to outside stimuli and nothing else, seem amply proven by the evolution and history of man. Every process of nature and life is a continuous sequence of cause and effect (156).
There is always change In the world that either changes the world in a good way or may go bad. When it comes to technology it is always the creator that makes technology good or bad. In the book Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, the main character Victor Frankenstein creates a creature using galvanism, but as soon as he completes his life long dream he sees how horrid the creature is and abandons it to live and face the outside world alone. This causes the creature to become Victors worst nightmare. It was Victors actions that caused the chaos, because of his misusage of science and actions.
Humans can never know for the certain why the universe was created or what caused it but, we can still create arguments and theories to best explain what might have created the universe. The cosmological argument is another idea to prove the existence of god. Many philosophers debate wheatear the cosmological argument is valid. The cosmological argument starts off quite simply: whatever exists must come from something else. Nothing is the source of its own existences, nothing is self-creating []. The cosmological argument states at some point, the cause and effect sequence must have a beginning. This unexpected phenomenal being is god. According to the argument, god is the initial start of the universe as we know it. Though nothing is self-creating cosmological believers say god is the only being the is self –created. Aquinas, an Italian philosopher, defended the argument and developed the five philosophical proofs for the existence of god knows as, the “Five Ways”.[]. In each “way” he describes his proof how god fills in the blanks of the unexplainable. The first way simply states that, things in motion must be put in motion by something. The second was is efficient because, nothing brings its self into existence. The third is, possibility and necessity [!]. Aqunhias’ has two more ‘ways’ but for the purpose of this essay I won’t be focusing on them heavily. These ways have started philosophers to debate and question his arguments ultimately made the cosmological argument debatable. The cosmological argument is however not a valid argument in explaining the existence of god because the conclusions do not logically follow the premises.
.... Recent developments in quantum physics, biology and information science have put us in a position where we question the uniqueness of the causal-mechanical model of science. But these developments, even though sciences based on non-causal concepts might dominate in the culture, would not eradicate the causal way people have viewed the world and themselves, but only relegate the concept of cause to the realm of metaphor, a rhetorical way of putting things. The concept of cause then would no longer be a scientific concept, but would still be alive in the culture. What brings a change in the general worldview then? This would be the question I still have to ask.
Paley’s analogy came about from the concept of a stone. He encountered this stone during his walk and wondered how it came about (Paley, 1802, 196). He applies the idea that since a designer must have created this stone, this designer must have created other things just like how a watch is created by a watchmaker. His analogy for a watch and its watch maker becomes his key argument because he argues is that you cannot come to a conclusion that a stone was formed by a natural process, just like how when you look at a watch it has a watchmaker(Paley, 1802, 96). When comparing it back to a stone, Paley says someone must have created it. He says design requires a designer, the works of nature also requires a designer and that designer would be God. From this Paley creates his four arguments for God’s existence from analogies, which are argument from design is based on experience, argument from design assumes that we are different in kind, but same in degree, argument from design argues from mind/ thought to design, and argument from design...
thereby alter life situations in the natural? What he found was that it is possible that the mind acts back on itself (as the brain) to cause physical and structural change.
... issues in science that the author addresses by showing us science and its negative aspects. Whether or not Frankenstein has created a monster or a creature worthy of human sympathy, understanding, and respect is always a situation that must remind us that there are always dangers in the misuse of many technological developments as well as of human abilities. Humans playing God must utilize their capabilities in ways that will deepen and enrich the lives of human beings keeping in mind that the effect of much of scientific advance can lead to an arrogant aping of God’s power and reject accept what nature or God brings. Therefore the act of playing God as man is created in the image and likeness of God is not the ability to create life, but is the moral responsibility of humans that echoes the moral responsibility of God as in the capacity to act wisely and in love.