Teleological Argument: OCR Religious Studies

[@SenorDep]

Got my philosophy exam tomorrow, watching your videos for any last ideas and they're helping so much - thank you!

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Really pleased I can help :) Good luck tomorrow!

[@nuvairausman430]

I watch your videos for criminology and I've been getting higher marks, all thanks to you now I found your religious studies videos aswell and I'm pleased

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

That is wonderful to hear! I am really pleased my videos are helping and well done on your higher marks 😀

[@chloew968]

There is a lot to this topic - I feel like it could quite easily become quite a descriptive essay trying to cover all the points (it would also be quite hard to remember all the points!). Is it important to cover all aspects of it, or can you just cover what's directly related to the question? E.G. if the question was on Aquinas' fifth way would you necessarily need to bring in evolution? Thanks - your videos are very helpful :)

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Great question and I totally understand why you would feel this way. You wouldn't need to cover all the sections only the ones that relate to the question and/or your line of argument. So you wouldn't need to mention evolution or the extra names/details if it is not relevant to the question. Hope this makes sense :)

[@chloew968]

@@IThinkThereforeITeachPerfect, thanks so much!

[@intelligentdesign2295]

Many of Hume 's objections can be answered. Objection (1) "A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues) Response: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (2) "[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues) Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (3) “But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain.” (Dialogues) Response: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "By tracing the origin of the physical universe to a supposed 'Big Bang', modern cosmology places Hume in the following dilemma. Either, he must deny that the physical universe as a whole is singular and unique, on the grounds that it resembles other things besides it that explode, such as grenades. Or, alternatively, should he insist on the uniqueness of the physical universe, he must concede that there are some unique things which are capable of standing as terms of causal relations. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (4) "Nature seems to have formed an exact calculation of the necessities of her creatures; and like a rigid master, has afforded them little more powers or endowments, than what are strictly sufficient to supply those necessities. An indulgent parent would have bestowed a large stock, in order to guard against accidents, and secure the happiness and welfare of the creature, in the most unfortunate concurrence of circumstances. Every course of life would not have been so surrounded with precipices, that the least departure from the true path, by mistake or necessity, must involve us in misery and ruin." (Dialogues) Response: "The third consideration which Hume proffers in support of his claim that (at least some of) the natural evil in the world is gratuitous is that, were the universe the handiwork of some benevolent intelligence, its inhabitants might have been expected to be better provisioned than they are with the wherewithal for their enjoying felicity. Again, Hume fails to supply adequate reason for supposing this to be so. For example, were sheep better able to evade the fox, then foxes would have been less well able to survive and flourish. Should it be suggested that the world would have been a better place had sheep been allowed to graze without any predators, we might wonder whether they might not then have reproduced beyond the point at which pastures might have been able to sustain them, ... and so on. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom")

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Thank you for talking the time to write responses against Hume. These will really help students to extend their answers :)

[@sethmitchell7469]

please may you do one of these for the ontological argument?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Seth, as it is not specified for this year's exam I will try do a video focusing on a posteriori vs a priori but probably won't cover Ontological until after exam. It will definitely get done but at the moment I have quite a list of videos in prep for exam :)

[@sethmitchell7469]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach No worries, thank you anyway!

[@iamlikecam]

Hi, do you absolutely have to know about the Aesthetic Argument? I find it quite hard to understand and don’t really know how to use it in an essay.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Cameron, no the aesthetic argument is an extra name/ point so you would not need to use it. It simply means we appreciate beauty which is beyond our evolutionary need for fight and flight...therefore it could be argued that there is more to existence than just evolution :)

[@zoeb1099]

Hi Miss! i’m a bit confused- is the goldilocks argument the same as the fine tuning argument? or are they different? if so can you explain the fine tuning argument please!

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

The goldilocks argument is about the perfect positioning of the earth from the sun (not to hot not to cold) for life. Fine tuning argument is a modern spin on Teleolgical using advancements in science (physics/big bang) to say about how earth is finely tuned for life to exist and this could point to God as creator. So yes they are very similar :)

[@zoeb1099]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach oh ok thank you!! does this mean that the fine tuning argument and the anthropic principle are the same then?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

You could link them together as the Anthropic argument focuses on how evolution and design can work together :)

[@zoeb1099]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach perfect thank you so so much!!!

[@eviebeeswax1307]

could i bring the watch analogy into the problem of evil?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Yes I could see how that would work. Do you mean when talking about design? Looking at God's logical attributes? You also have Hume's criticism of the POE :)

[@LavaRushdi]

hi, does this video cover everything for arguments based on observation?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi, this video covers everything needed for the Teleological argument (you would have to check out Cosmological for the other argument from observation). You may have covered other areas as well, as there is so much extra reading on the Teleological argument but this is what the examiner's are expecting you to know :)

[@HenaKaur]

Hi, what did Cicero see when he 'looked up to the sky?'

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

We can assume he either meant the sun or moon/ stars. He is pointing to the grandure of design and how when you look to the sky to appreciate the immenseness of creation :)

[@aleeha1850]

Hello! Could you possibly do a video on essay structure for 40 mark questions (ocr)?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi there are already quite a few essay support videos on my channel to help structure an essay. There are also a lot of tips on the blog (under same name) that go over introductions, paragraphs, conclusions etc :)

[@zaynaadli6216]

hey can u make a video on hicks theodicy strengths and weaknesses

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Zayna, I will add it to my list for future videos :)

[@HenaKaur]

Also, do you mark essays from non-students? My teacher marks my essays but they don't say what I need to do better at.

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi, I don't mark essays for non students at the moment, however you might find some help and guidance from the blog as I write a lot of pointers and things to be aware of when writing essays :)

[@victoriabaker2662]

would you recommend writing about Paley or Aquinas first in an essay?

[@IThinkThereforeITeach]

Hi Victoria, it purely depends on the question. If question on Paley then every paragraph and line of argument needs to focus on him. If Aquinas/Hume or evolution do the same. If the question is open e.g Critcslly assess the teleological argument then you could start with either. Probably Aquinas is easiest in this case as his argument influenced Paely, hence the overlaps on regularity. Hope this helps :)

[@victoriabaker2662]

@@IThinkThereforeITeach ohh okay, thank you that's helpful