OCR ↗︎
Philosophy ↗︎
Question preparation ↓

AO1: Aquinas’ 5th way

• Thomas Aquinas’ 5th Way is an a posteriori argument based on observation.
• Natural beings do not act randomly but move towards goals or purposes.
• For example, flowers turn to the sun, birds migrate, and planets move in regular ways.
• This shows the world is ordered.
• However, these objects are not intelligent.
• So they cannot direct themselves.
• Aquinas argues that something intelligent must guide them.
• He uses the example of an arrow.
• An arrow reaches a target because an archer directs it.
• The arrow itself does not understand its goal.
  
• In the same way, God directs natural objects.
• God creates natural laws that guide their behaviour.
• Each thing has a nature that leads it towards its purpose.
• So the order of nature suggests there is an intelligent designer, which Aquinas calls God.

AO1: Paley’s design qua purpose (watch)

• William Paley asks us to imagine finding a rock on a heath.
• The rock could have existed forever, since nothing about it suggests design.
• But if we found a watch, we would think differently.
• A watch has complex parts arranged to perform the purpose of telling the time.
• Paley argues that complexity alone does not show design.
• For example, sand on a beach can form complex patterns by chance.
• However, a sandcastle is different because its parts are arranged to serve a purpose.
• This makes it reasonable to think it was designed.
• So design is shown when complexity produces a purpose.
• Paley says this is also seen in nature.
• The eye, wings, and fins are complex structures that allow seeing, flying, and swimming.
• So nature appears to be designed.
• Because nature is greater than human objects, its designer must also be greater.
• This designer must be a mind that is separate from the world.
• The argument is inductive and a posteriori, using observation as evidence for the existence of God.

AO2: The validity of analogy 

• Swinburne argues analogy is a valid way of reasoning.
• If something is similar to something else, we can infer a similar cause.
• Design arguments use this by comparing nature to human creations.
• So it is reasonable to infer a designer.
  

Counter

• Hume argues similar things can have different causes.
• For example, different processes can produce the same effect.
• He also says the universe is not very similar to a machine.
• So the analogy is weak and unreliable.
  

Evaluation

• Hume’s criticism is not decisive.
• Paley’s argument can be understood as focusing on complexity and purpose, not just analogy.
• The watch example is mainly an illustration.
• This avoids the problem of weak comparison.
• Aquinas’ arrow example can also be read this way.
• So the argument does not depend on analogy alone.
• This means Hume’s objection does not fully undermine the design argument. 

AO2: Hume’s critique: God not the only explanation 

• David Hume argues the design argument cannot prove the Christian God.
• Other explanations are possible, such as many gods or a limited designer.
• So even if the argument works, it cannot justify belief in any particular God.

Counter

• Richard Swinburne argues one God is the simplest explanation.
• Also, Thomas Aquinas and William Paley never aimed to prove the Christian God.
• They only aim to show a designer exists, which supports faith.

Evaluation

• Hume’s criticism is not convincing because it misunderstands the aim of the design argument.
• Aquinas clearly limits his conclusion to “that thing we call God,” showing it is not meant to prove the Christian God fully.
• The argument only aims to support belief in a designer.
• Faith then identifies this as the Christian God.
• So the limited scope is intentional, not a flaw.
• Hume therefore attacks a claim the argument does not actually make, so his critique fails.

AO2: The epicurean hypothesis & the multiverse

• Hume argues that order could arise by chance if the universe were eternal.
• Given enough time, even unlikely arrangements would happen.
• The current evidence for the big bang suggests the universe isn’t eternal.
• But a modern version of Hume’s point would be the multiverse.
• If every type of universe exists in the multiverse, some will be orderly just by chance.

Counter

• Defenders of design argue the multiverse has no strong evidence and may not be testable.
• Swinburne also argues science cannot explain why laws exist at all.
• So the multiverse does not remove the need for God.

Evaluation

• Nonetheless, the multiverse is still a strong challenge to the design argument.
• Even if it is uncertain, it is taken seriously by scientists and cannot be dismissed easily.
• Hume’s key point is that we only need an alternative competing explanation to God. 
• We don’t have to prove the epicurean hypothesis or multiverse true.
• If order can be explained in more than one way, then God is no longer the only explanation.
• This weakens the argument because it can no longer show that God is the best explanation.
• So the design argument loses its persuasive force.

AO1: Darwinian evolution vs design

• William Paley and Thomas Aquinas argue that complexity and purpose show design.
• Darwinian evolution offers another explanation.
• There is variation in species, and those better adapted survive and reproduce.
• They pass on useful traits, which become more common over time.
• This makes organisms appear designed for survival.
• Features like instincts and behaviour can be explained by this process.
• So what Aquinas called a telos can be explained by natural selection.
• Richard Dawkins argues that complex organs like the eye developed gradually.

• This creates the appearance of design without a designer.
• So complexity and purpose can be explained naturally, making a designer unnecessary.

AO2: Hume & Darwin on Design vs the problem of evil

• Charles Darwin argued that nature contains cruelty, such as parasitic wasps.
• David Hume uses this to argue that suffering is evidence against a perfect designer.
• If God designed the world, it should contain less unnecessary suffering.

Counter:

• Theodicies argue evil is necessary for greater goods.
• Augustine of Hippo links it to punishment, Alvin Plantinga to free will, and John Hick to soul-making.
• So God cannot remove evil without losing important goods.

Evaluation:

• These responses are unconvincing.
• Natural evil harms innocent beings, so it cannot be justified by free will, punishment or soul-making.
• So while a perfect God may still be possible, he cannot be inferred from observation.
• This weakens design arguments, which rely on evidence from the world.
• If we consider all the evidence, including suffering, the world does not point to a perfect designer.
• So it cannot be used to support faith in the Christian God, which was Aquinas and Paley’s aim.

AO2: Design arguments after Darwin

• Tennant and Swinburne argue that design is shown in the laws of nature rather than just in living things.
• Evolution may explain how organisms develop, but it does not explain why the universe has precise laws that allow life.
• These conditions seem highly unlikely, so fine-tuning suggests a designer.

Counter

• This argument assumes the laws of nature could have been different.
• However, it is possible that they are necessary and could not have been otherwise.
• Scientists also aim to find deeper explanations of these laws.
• So fine-tuning may not need God as an explanation.

Evaluation

• Design arguments still rely heavily on gaps in scientific knowledge.
• Evolution showed that earlier arguments from complexity were mistaken, and this raises doubts about newer versions too.
• Just because we do not currently understand something does not mean God is the correct explanation.
• Science may eventually explain why the laws of nature are as they are.
• So the argument depends on what we do not yet know, rather than strong positive evidence.
• This makes it weak, as it assumes God explains what science has not yet explained.

Question preparation

Key paragraphs:

AO1: Aquinas’ 5th way
AO1: Paley’s design qua purpose (watch)
AO2: The validity of analogy
AO2: Hume’s critique: God not the only explanation
AO2: The epicurean hypothesis & the multiverse
AO1: Darwinian evolution vs design
AO2: Hume & Darwin on Design vs the problem of evil
AO2: Design arguments after Darwin

Question types:

Questions could focus on, or ask for a critical comparison of, any the following:

• Aquinas’ 5th way
• Paley’s design argument
• Hume’s critiques of the design argument
• Evolution

Can Aquinas’ 5th way be defended against the issue of ‘chance’? [40]

• AO1: Aquinas’ 5th way (Full amount)
• AO2: Design arguments after Darwin
  • Evolution argues for ‘chance’, though Swinburne argues Aquinas gets around it – but, there could be necessary laws which would make our existence chance (or perhaps predetermined!).
• AO2: The epicurean hypothesis & the multiverse
  • This argues the world could have come about by chance
• AO2: Hume & Darwin on Design vs the problem of evil
  • Evil makes the world appear like it was either the result of chance, or the result of an evil God, or a God who just didn’t care and happened to make us by chance, or created a world that could have made us by chance without caring about nor intending that.

Evaluate whether Hume’s critiques undermine Paley’s design argument [40]

• Split focused AO1: between Paley’s design argument and Hume’s critiques
• AO1: Paley’s design qua purpose (moderate amount)
• Then, any 3 of these 4 will work:
• AO2: The validity of analogy
• AO2: Hume’s critique: God not the only explanation
  
• AO2: The epicurean hypothesis & the multiverse
• AO2: Hume & Darwin on Design vs the problem of evil

“How convincing are Hume’s criticisms of the teleological argument” [40]

• Minor explanation of Paley and/or Aquinas
• Then, there are 4 critiques from Hume to choose from, I’d do these ones:
• AO2: The validity of analogy (Hume’s critique)
• AO2: Hume’s critique: God not the only explanation
• AO2: The epicurean hypothesis (Hume’s critique) & the multiverse  (modern extension of Hume’s style of critique)
• Line of argument / Conclusion: Hume’s analogy and multiple God’s critiques fail, but his epicurean hypothesis succeeds with developments from modern science – so he undermines the design argument.
• Or you could add his problem of evil critique instead, which you could argue succeeds.

“Does evolution undermine the possibility of arguing for God based on design? [40]

• Very short AO1 for Paley and Aquinas’ 5th way
• AO1: Darwinian evolution vs design
• AO2: Hume & Darwin on Design vs the problem of evil
• AO2: Design arguments after Darwin
• • Tennant and Swinburne develop Aquinas’ approach to get around the evolution critique. Develop the reference made to the multiverse here too, as well as the natural laws being necessary argument:
  • Key thing is to emphasise how they just extend the evolution critique – by showing scientific explanations block the inference to God. And how Tennant and Swinburne really repeat the same mistake as Paley, which evolution already highlighted – the assumption that if science can’t explain something then God does. 

Critically compare Aquinas’ 5th way with Paley’s design argument [40]

• AO1: Aquinas’ 5th way (half amount)
• AO1: Paley’s design qua purpose (half amount)
• Then you could do any of the following:
• AO2: The validity of analogy
  • Ends up saying Paley seems stronger as his argument isn’t based on analogy. Though maybe Aquinas’ doesn’t have to be either?
• AO2: Hume’s critique: God not the only explanation
  • They both get around this critique – following Aquinas’ natural theology approach.
• AO2: The epicurean hypothesis & the multiverse
  • This critique destroys all design arguments – showing aquinas and paley both fail equally.
• AO2: Hume & Darwin on Design vs the problem of evil
  • This also counters both arguments equally
• AO2: Design arguments after Darwin
  • Evolution is more of an issue for Paley, since Aquinas focuses on order at the level of natural laws rather than biological organisms – what Swinburne develops into calling ‘temporal order’. But in the end, even Aquinas’ version also fails against modern scientific hypotheses about multiverses and necessary laws.

“Hume’s criticisms of the teleological argument are the most serious that it faces” – Discuss. [40]

• Saying Hume fails and evolution succeeds as a critique would be easiest:
• Minor explanation of Paley and/or Aquinas
• AO2: Hume’s critique: God not the only explanation
• AO1: Darwinian evolution vs design (moderate amount)
• AO2: Design arguments after Darwin
• Then you could do either:
• AO2: The validity of analogy
  • To show Hume fails even more
• Or more interesting would be:
• AO2: The epicurean hypothesis & the multiverse
  • This argument from Hume works in style, but needs extending by modern scientific critiques like the multiverse. 

Weirdly worded questions:

Whether a priori or a posteriori is the more successful type of argument [40]
Or: Whether God’s existence best justified a posteriori / a priori [40]

• This question requires that you judge whether the ontological argument (a priori) is better or worse than a posteriori arguments (teleo/cosmo).
• You must do the ontological argument, and then at least one of teleo or cosmo – or both.

• You will then have judged whether: 
• They all succeed (So ontological better – because it tries to prove God’s existence for deductively certain – whereas cosmo/teleo are inductive arguments trying to show the evidence supports belief – but doesn’t prove it for certain). 
• One type fails and the other succeeds (so the other type is more successful/convincing).
• They all fail (equally unsuccessful/unconvincing).

I’d choose these:

• AO1: Anselm (short), AO2: Kant (either of Kant’s critiques will do)
  • Kant is more of an upgraded critique than Gaunilo to be frank so an essay which leaves our Gaunilo feels more comprehensive than one which leaves out Kant.
• AO2: Design arguments after Darwin
  • This is a nice one for this purpose because it covers a variety of design arguments and how they interact with the evolution issue, and then more contemporary issues.
• AO1: Aquinas’ 3rd way (short), AO2: The fallacy of composition
  • Fallacy of composition targets all versions of the cosmological argument and touches on infinite regress issues and the universe needing no cause – so it’s the best for capturing the overall issues.
• Or: AO2: The Im/possibility of a necessary being
  • This critique of a necessary being works very well because it attempts to attack both cosmological and ontological – but Copleston replies that it only undermines the ontological argument, not the cosmological, making the cosmological seem stronger. However in the end I evaluate that Hume succeeds, showing all varieties of argument to equally fail (though you could evaluate differently if desired).

• This question would be answered best if you could highlight how the criticisms of each especially target their a priori or a posteriori nature. 
• E.g., Kant shows the difficulty of proving existence through definition – which attacks a priori demonstrations of existence.
• E.g., most criticisms of the design and cosmological arguments exploit its inductive a posteriori nature – by showing the evidence they point to could be explained by alternative conclusions (evolution, or the universe having no cause, or some scientific cause like necessary matter).

Does the teleological argument contain logical fallacies? [40]

• A very broad definition of a logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. 
• The more standard definition of a fallacy is a particular type of mistake, which are then called formal or informal fallacies.

• Without getting into that though, it would be simplest to treat this as a question about whether the criticisms highlight flaws in the reasoning of the argument. Not just providing evidence against it. E.g., evolution provides evidence against the design argument – but the fallacy it highlights is the assumption that complexity and purpose implies design, or that science being unable to explain something is a reason to think God designed it (God of the gaps fallacy). 
• For Hume:
  • AO2: The validity of analogy
    • It’s a fallacy to think human creations are analogous to natural objects.
  • AO2: Hume’s critique: God not the only explanation
    • It’s a fallacy to infer the existence of the Christian God in particular
  • AO2: The epicurean hypothesis & the multiverse
    •  It’s fallacious to assume that complexity and purpose couldn’t come about by chance.