AS Religion & Philosophy

hiya, anyone doing AS Buddhism or Philosophy?

I would like to gather some more pointers particularly on the STRENGTHS and WEAKNESSES of the design argument and the cosmological argument.

any recommended sites to study from for AS Buddhism would also be appreciated!

thanks

Reply 1

sheerframboise

Hey, I do Philosophy of Religion and Religious Ethics for OCR AS Religious Studies, but we've done those topics. I've given you some of the weaknesses of both the cosmological argument and the design/teleological argument, hope that helps you a little :smile:

Weaknesses of the cosmological argument:

Hume argues it is incorrect to move from stating that everything in the universe has a cause to the universe itself has a cause - it's too big a leap in logic. Russell also agrees with Hume's criticism. To say that every human has a mother does not imply that the whole human race has a mother. It is a different logical sphere, as such.
He challenges the idea that the universe has a beginning and claims that it is possible for it to go back to infinity.
Hume also argues that even if we accept that the universe must have a cause, there is no solid ground for assuming that this cause must be the Christian God. It could've been caused by a committee of divine beings.
Can we use knowledge based on experience to make conclusions about things beyond our experience?
It is unsatisfactory to imagine a world as existing in a succession of different states infinitely and to therefore assume a first cause necessarily exists.

The success of the cosmological argument depends first of all on a willingness to ask the question, "Why is there a universe?" If you are content to simply accept that the universe is there and does not need an explanation, or that it can be explained by infinite regress, then the cosmological argument fails. (See Russell and Copleston's 1948 radio debate). In addition, God must also be shown to be a simpler or better ultimate explanation than the brute fact of the existence of the universe, and the idea of an uncaused cause which transcends the distinction between something and nothing must be shown to be credible. (Peter Vardy)

Weaknesses of the teleological argument:

It states that the complexity of the world implies a designer but the designer's mind is also complex. Hume asked, 'Why stop at God when asking for explanations?'
The presence of evil in the world suggests the designer God is either not entirely good or not powerful enough, rather than the God of classical theism. Perhaps the world was completed by an inferior being rather than such a being as God.
Why should there be only one designer?
The design argument simplistically portrays God as a superhuman who makes things just as people make things.
A machine is not a good analogy for the universe.
There is no evidence of the universe being made - we should not argue from causes within the universe to the cause of the universe.
While the teleological argument might point to a God, it would not point to a Christian God who was omnibenevolent and omnipotent due to the presence of natural disasters. (John Stuart Mill)
The suffering caused by natural disasters is the kind of suffering humans are punished for when they are the cause. If the maker is omnipotent then we must conclude the maker wills suffering. (John Stuart Mill)
Charles Darwin proposed the theory of natural selection whereby new species could evolve from existing ones without the need for an intervention from an external being.
The complex intricacies in nature are explained by this process of evolution as only the fittest survive. A designer God is not necessary and the so-called designed universe is in fact a naturally evolved one`

As for AS Buddhism, try http://www.buddhanet.net/
I'm not sure what stuff is exactly on the AS syllabus, although I did Buddhism at GCSE - loved it! Just try searching on Google?

Reply 2

thefish_uk

Also they both work from experience that anybody can see making them highly appealing, especially the design argument.

Kant said that both are stupid because they attempt to go from our experience of the world to trying to establish the existence of something outside our world.

More on the cosmological argument:

Russell disputed the assumption that the whole of the universe had to have a cause, saying it could be a brute fact that the universe exists. Hume said that no experience could prove cause and effect.

Also, Aquinas rejected an uncaused first cause and infinity and then attributed both to God.

A valid point is that the creator may have ceased to exist. However, Copleston pointed out that there are "in fieri" causes and "in esse" causes; the former are things such as being born and pressing a button to switch something on where the cause can stop once the effect has been caused, and the latter are things such as holding a pen or looking in the mirror where once the cause ceases to be, so does the effect. He said Aquinas was trying to prove the Christian concept of God which has to be an in esse cause as he is the sustainer.

sheerframboise

Hume argues it is incorrect to move from stating that everything in the universe has a cause to the universe itself has a cause - it's too big a leap in logic.

This is known as the fallacy of composition, where you say that because each item in a group has an attribute you say the group itself has that attribute. Just because things in the universe need to be caused doesn't mean the universe itself needs to be caused.

More on the Design argument:

Don't forget Paley! He said that if you found a watch you would assume it had a designer even if you'd never seen one before - the same is true for the universe.

Hume said the universe is so unique you can't compare anything to it at all. But then Swinburne said hey, wait, you can describe the universe as a collection of parts we know about.

Epicurus noted the difference between apparent design and actual design - Darwin would have said that evolution leads to apparent design which we see as actual design.

Swinburne had something called the "temporal order" argument where he used the existence of fundamental laws and constants at all to be thanks to God. He said there are other explanations in science but God is the simplest and therefore the most probable. However we can dispute that God is the simplest (think of all the problems) and also that simple = probable.

Phew! Good revision for me :smile:

Reply 3

Mata

Ooh, good stuff. This is what we were told to write in the exam, if the marks for the questions are divided 50/50 for parts a and b, or close to that. You can swap bits around depending on how they phrase the question or how teh marks are evened out.

Design, part a:

Introduction: also known as teleological, a posteriori, argues order, purpose and regularity through anaLOGY. Also shows a seigner through complexity, complexity implies designer and argues that this designer is God. Argued in two parts: qua purpose and qua regularity. (Note: we were told this is a 100% introduction, and the words 'qua' and 'analogy' gain you instant marks).

Argument: Aquinas arguing qua regularity - living and non-living things (e.g. seasons and movement of planets) points to an intelligent designer. Remember to define regularity. Paley arguing qua purpose, blind watchmaker, and arguing qua regularity, planets held in order by gravity. Remember to put in paradigms, and use at least one quote in both part a and b, otherwise you *will* lose 10 marks. Then we have Arthur Brown to cover 20th century, supporting Paley through the o-zone argument. Then the Anthropic Principle which is a recent development by F.R. Tennant. This is basically the intelligent design argument, supporting evolution and big bang, but also accepting God.

Design part b: (this is where we're told to cover most of the strengths and weaknesses, and this is the order our teacher gave us for a 50/50 essay)

Swinburne AKA 'Mr. Probably' - a strength. supports anthropic principle. God simplest explanation... order and complexity = a designer. Another strength in the Aesthetic argument which supports Tennant.

Hume is a weakness. He has 5 points against which are very long, but you can find them in the Jordan book of philosophy or on the internet. Apparently, these are essential. You then critique Hume: "To the observer most things appear regular, "There often seems to be a purpose for animate and inanimate things" and "probability supports design"..

Then John Stuart Mill who is also a weaknesssupporting Hume because of evil and suffering. Then the epicurean hypothesis which is also a weakness: argues theat the universe was created by particles in random motion. Then Kant: we can't handle chaos so impose order, and there is really no order.

Then Darwin: "Yay!evolution/yay!God". Then Dawkins: "Yay!Evolution/Nay!God".

Conclusion: Even Hume admits design is probably. Epistemic Distance: We don't see the designer today because if His presence was too imminent then faith would mean nothing: good for 'proving' God of Classical Theism. Teleological argument dies a "death by 1000 qualifications" meaning it cannot really prove a God as its so busy trying to fend off its weaknesses. Finally, a Deistic God is more probable if we accept a designer, whereas the Theistic God cannot be proved.

I also have a thing on Cosmological, but I think its been covered. Phew. Everyone seems to have covered different things in different depths, for example we didn't really do much on Copleston's 'in fieri' and 'in esse'... first time I've heard those words. Gulp.

Reply 4

candystrippa

wow, thanks guys, very very much!!!

Reply 5

candystrippa

btw, anyone got useful QUOTES?

Reply 6

Mata

Design Quotes:

Paley:"When we come to inspect the watch we perceive... that its several parts were framed and put together for a purpose" (analogy of the blind watchmaker).

Hume: (showing a weakness of the design argument) The world... "Was only the first rude essay of some infant deity who otherwise abandoned it."

Cosmological Quotes:

Kalam Argument (William Lane Craig's edition): "If the universe did not have a beginning, then the past must consist of series of events that are actually - and not merely potentially - infinite"

Craig again: "The cause of the universe must be a personal being who freely chooses to create the world."

Hume (weakness of cosmo argument): "How can anything that exists have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and in a beginning of existence."

Russell (weakness): "The universe is just there, and that's all"

Ta-da! Hope these help, candy.

thanks a ton mata!!

An interesting way to view the cosmological argument in its form the argument from contingency is to take the view that because the universe is contingent (i.e. it just happens to exist) means that at some point there must be some being with necessary existence - which of course you may call God.

However, this is obviously flawed as the reduction to necessary existence entails having to show that the concept of God entails necessary existence - which fails due to the flaws in the ontological argument in which existence is not a predicate.

Reply 9

candystrippa

how about for EVIL AND SUFFERNG?

Reply 10

emit.

problem of evil leads to apparent contradtion between god's attributes and the existence of evil/suffering in the world. for example, god is said to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent as well as perfectly good which implies he has the power to eradicate evil, he knows about it and as he is all loving why doesnt he act upon the issue?

one solution to the problem is to 'modify' some of gods attributes to fit around the problem which doesnt really solve it convincingly IMO.

secondly the Free Will Defence argues that as human beings we have free will to chose between right and wrong. if god did not give us free will then there may be no moral evil but also no moral good. Augustine said something like "it is better to have free will and evil in the world than to have no free will and no evil". moreover to remove evil would remove some good as suffering can lead to acts of compassion (eg). therefore creating good out of bad.
this shows that contradtion between god and the problem of evil is only implied and not explicit allowing god to maintain his attributes.

i just put this together from some quick notes i made on the topic so feel free to correct or object. does anyone have any good objections to the free will defence?