phil 236 philosophy of religion the design argument
Post on 05-Jan-2016
222 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
PHIL 236 PHIL 236 Philosophy of Philosophy of
ReligionReligionThe Design ArgumentThe Design Argument
The Argument from The Argument from DesignDesign
Also known as the Also known as the teleological teleological argumentargument
Is Is inductiveinductive Aims to make God’s existence Aims to make God’s existence probableprobable Sometimes it is also “abductive”, i.e. Sometimes it is also “abductive”, i.e.
God’s existence is the best explanation. God’s existence is the best explanation. Is Is a posterioria posteriori
Is based not on pure reasoning (is not Is based not on pure reasoning (is not a a prioripriori) but on observable facts) but on observable facts
Versions of the argumentVersions of the argument
Two common versionsTwo common versions One appeals to One appeals to biologicalbiological facts facts
Paley’s version of design argumentPaley’s version of design argument Intelligent Design MovementsIntelligent Design Movements
The other appeals to The other appeals to cosmological cosmological factsfacts Fine-Tuning ArgumentFine-Tuning Argument
Both see evidence of design in Both see evidence of design in naturenature
William Paley’s ArgumentWilliam Paley’s ArgumentThe Watch and the Human EyeThe Watch and the Human Eye
In a nutshell: In a nutshell: Artificial mechanisms like watches must have Artificial mechanisms like watches must have
designersdesigners By analogy, so must organs like the eyeBy analogy, so must organs like the eye
The Starting PointThe Starting Point
If you found a stone, you might not If you found a stone, you might not infer that it had a makerinfer that it had a maker
If you found a watch, you If you found a watch, you wouldwould infer that it had a makerinfer that it had a maker
Why?Why? Unlike the Unlike the stone, the parts of the watch stone, the parts of the watch
clearly fit together to serve a purpose. clearly fit together to serve a purpose.
Things you Wouldn’t SayThings you Wouldn’t Say
The watch might always have been thereThe watch might always have been there The watch’s parts came together by chanceThe watch’s parts came together by chance The watch merely exhibits “metallic nature”The watch merely exhibits “metallic nature” Matter has to take Matter has to take somesome form; why not a form; why not a
watch?watch? Useless parts prove the lack of a makerUseless parts prove the lack of a maker We don’t know enough to infer a designerWe don’t know enough to infer a designer
The Self-Reproducing The Self-Reproducing WatchWatch
Suppose the watch could reproduce Suppose the watch could reproduce itselfitself
Would we say it had no maker? Paley Would we say it had no maker? Paley says says NO!NO! First, this would make the watch even First, this would make the watch even
more remarkablemore remarkable Second, even if this watch had a “parent” Second, even if this watch had a “parent”
that had a “parent”... The series that had a “parent”... The series “wouldn’t tend to a limit”;“wouldn’t tend to a limit”; Each watch would Each watch would stillstill need to be explained need to be explained
Paley’s AnalogyPaley’s Analogy
The human eye is even more The human eye is even more remarkable than the watchremarkable than the watch
Its parts obviously fit together to Its parts obviously fit together to serve a purposeserve a purpose
Reasoning by analogy: like the Reasoning by analogy: like the watch, the eye must have had a watch, the eye must have had a designer and makerdesigner and maker
A Dated Argument?A Dated Argument?
Biologist (and passionate atheist) Biologist (and passionate atheist) Richard Dawkins says that Richard Dawkins says that in its dayin its day, , the argument from design would the argument from design would have been entirely convincinghave been entirely convincing
Why? Because no good natural Why? Because no good natural explanation for the biological facts explanation for the biological facts was available.was available.
Dawkins believes that this is no Dawkins believes that this is no longer solonger so
Paley vs. DarwinPaley vs. Darwin
William Paley1743-1805
Charles Darwin1809-1882
Evolution and DesignEvolution and Design
Without evolution, design seems to be Without evolution, design seems to be the only available explanation for the the only available explanation for the eye.eye.
Evolution undercuts Paley's argument Evolution undercuts Paley's argument by providing a plausible rival by providing a plausible rival explanation for the same factsexplanation for the same facts
Note: the point is not that evolution is Note: the point is not that evolution is known to be true. The point is that it known to be true. The point is that it undermines the claim that divine undermines the claim that divine design is the only plausible explanationdesign is the only plausible explanation
A Mere Theory?A Mere Theory? People often say: Evolution is “only a People often say: Evolution is “only a
theory”theory” This is a misunderstanding of what This is a misunderstanding of what
scientists mean by “theory.”scientists mean by “theory.” A theory is a set of organizing principles A theory is a set of organizing principles
that provides a way of unifying and that provides a way of unifying and explaining a body of facts.explaining a body of facts.
Calling something a theory says Calling something a theory says nothing nothing at allat all about whether it is probable about whether it is probable
It’s not contradictory to say that a It’s not contradictory to say that a theorytheory can be can be knownknown to be correct to be correct
Resistance to EvolutionResistance to Evolution
In the USA, there is a high degree of In the USA, there is a high degree of resistance to accepting evolution. resistance to accepting evolution. Why?Why?
Plausible answer: people believe Plausible answer: people believe that they need to choose between that they need to choose between evolution and their religious beliefsevolution and their religious beliefs
We should ask: is this a false We should ask: is this a false dilemma?dilemma?
Two ReasonsTwo Reasons Here are two reasons for thinking the Here are two reasons for thinking the
dilemma is false:dilemma is false: 1) The dilemma assumes that religious 1) The dilemma assumes that religious
belief calls for reading all scripture belief calls for reading all scripture literally. But many deeply religious literally. But many deeply religious people (the Pope, for example) disagree.people (the Pope, for example) disagree.
2) The dilemma sees evolution as a view 2) The dilemma sees evolution as a view that denies the possibility of divine that denies the possibility of divine intervention. But intervention. But thatthat claim is beyond claim is beyond the scope of science.the scope of science.
Intelligent DesignIntelligent Design
Intelligent design theory offers an Intelligent design theory offers an update to Paley’s argumentupdate to Paley’s argument
It tries to show that It tries to show that somesome biological biological facts can’t be explained by evolutionfacts can’t be explained by evolution
This may be true. The question is: do This may be true. The question is: do the arguments of ID theorists show the arguments of ID theorists show this?this?
Irreducible ComplexityIrreducible Complexity
Michael Behe says: a system is Michael Behe says: a system is irreducibly irreducibly complexcomplex if removing any part would make it if removing any part would make it non-functionalnon-functional
Behe argues: evolution can’t produce Behe argues: evolution can’t produce irreducibly complex systemsirreducibly complex systems
The reason: unless the system were fully The reason: unless the system were fully assembled, there would be nothing for assembled, there would be nothing for selection to operate onselection to operate on
The ExampleThe Example
Bacterial flagella work like an outboard motorBacterial flagella work like an outboard motor Remove any part, says Behe, and the flagellum Remove any part, says Behe, and the flagellum
doesn’t work.doesn’t work. Therefore, Behe says, evolution couldn’t Therefore, Behe says, evolution couldn’t
produce itproduce it
The Scientist’s ReplyThe Scientist’s Reply
The function a "part" has now need The function a "part" has now need not be the function it had earlier in not be the function it had earlier in evolutionary history.evolutionary history.
Selection can "co-opt" parts and Selection can "co-opt" parts and systems that function one way in one systems that function one way in one context and use them in another for context and use them in another for a different purposea different purpose
Therefore, “irreducible complexity” Therefore, “irreducible complexity” doesn’t rule out evolutiondoesn’t rule out evolution
...Continued...Continued
The point is not that evolutionary The point is not that evolutionary biology biology hashas explained the flagellum explained the flagellum
(though Kenneth Miller argues that (though Kenneth Miller argues that we have many parts of a good we have many parts of a good explanation)explanation)
The point is that a good The point is that a good understanding of how explanations understanding of how explanations work in evolutionary theory doesn’t work in evolutionary theory doesn’t rule outrule out an evolutionary explanation an evolutionary explanation
More Generally...More Generally...
Nature is worthy of wonder, but...Nature is worthy of wonder, but... ID is a "God of the Gaps“ approach, ID is a "God of the Gaps“ approach,
andand Biologists may come up with Biologists may come up with
plausible accounts of ID examples. plausible accounts of ID examples. Many people (including theologians Many people (including theologians
and scientists) believe that evolution and scientists) believe that evolution and theism can co-exist.and theism can co-exist.
Interim SummaryInterim Summary
Paley’s argument has a serious rival in Paley’s argument has a serious rival in evolution, evolution, butbut
Even if evolution is true, this doesn’t Even if evolution is true, this doesn’t show that God played no role in show that God played no role in evolution.evolution.
ID theorists may be correct in ID theorists may be correct in believing that there is a designer, believing that there is a designer, butbut
The kinds of arguments they offer are The kinds of arguments they offer are open to scientific criticismopen to scientific criticism
Fine-tuning Design Fine-tuning Design ArgumentsArguments
So far, we have looked at So far, we have looked at biologicalbiological design argumentsdesign arguments
These arguments focus on apparent These arguments focus on apparent design in organs and organismsdesign in organs and organisms
Another important kind of argument Another important kind of argument concentrates on large-scale facts concentrates on large-scale facts about the universeabout the universe
These arguments are called These arguments are called fine-fine-tuningtuning arguments. arguments.
Robin Collins’s AnalogyRobin Collins’s Analogy
Suppose we discovered a planet Suppose we discovered a planet where there waswhere there was
A domed structureA domed structure With an oxygen-recycling systemWith an oxygen-recycling system Ideal temperature and humidity Ideal temperature and humidity
range for liferange for life Water-recycling systemsWater-recycling systems Food production systemsFood production systems
Collins’s PointCollins’s Point
We would not agree that this system We would not agree that this system was a product of chancewas a product of chance
We would see it as a product of We would see it as a product of intelligence, butintelligence, but
a) Earth itself is such a system, anda) Earth itself is such a system, and b) More generally, various feature of b) More generally, various feature of
the universethe universe are fine-tuned for life are fine-tuned for life
Examples of Fine-Tuning: Examples of Fine-Tuning: GravityGravity
Gravity: if the gravitational constant Gravity: if the gravitational constant were only a little stronger, mammals were only a little stronger, mammals our size would be crushed. Stronger our size would be crushed. Stronger yet and all stars would be red dwarfs yet and all stars would be red dwarfs – not warm enough to support life– not warm enough to support life
If gravity were a little weaker, all If gravity were a little weaker, all stars would be blue giants – they stars would be blue giants – they don’t exist long enough for life to don’t exist long enough for life to developdevelop
Another Example: Strong Another Example: Strong Nuclear ForceNuclear Force
This force keeps atoms together by This force keeps atoms together by resisting electric repulsion.resisting electric repulsion.
A 1% increase would lead to almost all A 1% increase would lead to almost all carbon being burned into oxygen; a carbon being burned into oxygen; a 2% increase would prevent protons – 2% increase would prevent protons – and hence atoms – from formingand hence atoms – from forming
A 5% decrease would mean a universe A 5% decrease would mean a universe with no molecule more complex than with no molecule more complex than hydrogenhydrogen
The Cosmological The Cosmological ConstantConstant
This is the energy density of empty This is the energy density of empty spacespace
This constant is very close to zeroThis constant is very close to zero If it were even slightly larger, the If it were even slightly larger, the
universe would expand far too universe would expand far too rapidly for stars, galaxies, planets rapidly for stars, galaxies, planets and hence life to formand hence life to form
The Point AgainThe Point Again
The constants of the universe seem The constants of the universe seem to make the universe into an to make the universe into an “irreducibly complex system” from “irreducibly complex system” from the point of view of lifethe point of view of life
That is: tamper even a little with That is: tamper even a little with even one of the many fine-tuned even one of the many fine-tuned constants, and there would be no lifeconstants, and there would be no life
ProbabilityProbability
The point can be put in probability The point can be put in probability terms: given the range of values terms: given the range of values open “open “a prioria priori” to the constants, it is ” to the constants, it is fantastically improbable that by fantastically improbable that by chance alone, they would permit lifechance alone, they would permit life
However, if an intelligent designer is However, if an intelligent designer is responsible for their values, the fine-responsible for their values, the fine-tuning is no longer improbable.tuning is no longer improbable.
Objection: Other Life-Objection: Other Life-FormsForms
The fine-tuning argument points to The fine-tuning argument points to various physical conditions various physical conditions necessary for life, butnecessary for life, but
It doesn’t take account of the fact It doesn’t take account of the fact that our form of carbon-based life that our form of carbon-based life may not be the only possible formmay not be the only possible form
Reply:Reply:
For the most part, the fine-tuning For the most part, the fine-tuning argument doesn’t focus on the argument doesn’t focus on the details of life-forms (e.g., carbon vs. details of life-forms (e.g., carbon vs. silicon)silicon)
Instead it focuses on such things as Instead it focuses on such things as the possibility of atoms of the possibility of atoms of anyany sort, sort, or of stars that can provide energy, or of stars that can provide energy, or of the possibility of chemical or of the possibility of chemical processesprocesses
Objection: “Fundamental Objection: “Fundamental Law”Law”
Perhaps there is a fundamental law Perhaps there is a fundamental law thatthat
underlies more specific physical laws, underlies more specific physical laws, andand
Implies that the constants have the Implies that the constants have the values that they havevalues that they have
If so, the fine-tuning would be If so, the fine-tuning would be explained by reference to this explained by reference to this fundamental lawfundamental law
RepliesReplies First, the hypothesis is sheer speculationFirst, the hypothesis is sheer speculation (However, the objector might reply that (However, the objector might reply that
it represents a coherent possibility – just it represents a coherent possibility – just as God does)as God does)
Second, it would just allow a new version Second, it would just allow a new version of the question. We could ask: why of the question. We could ask: why thisthis fundamental law, rather than some fundamental law, rather than some other? other?
Why a fundamental law that calls for Why a fundamental law that calls for thesethese values of the constants? values of the constants?
Further to the second Further to the second replyreply
John Leslie points out that our John Leslie points out that our scientific models allow for other scientific models allow for other sorts of universes with other sorts sorts of universes with other sorts ranges of constants. ranges of constants.
Therefore, there is no good reason Therefore, there is no good reason to believe in such a fundamental law to believe in such a fundamental law
Objection: The universe had Objection: The universe had to be to be somesome way way
The universe had to have The universe had to have somesome set of set of lawslaws
Further, there’s no reason to think Further, there’s no reason to think any one detailed set more any one detailed set more improbable than any other.improbable than any other.
Looked at in this way, there is Looked at in this way, there is nothing to explainnothing to explain
A ComparisonA Comparison
Suppose we consider a bridge hand. Suppose we consider a bridge hand. The chance of someone being dealt The chance of someone being dealt that particular, specific bridge hand that particular, specific bridge hand is very smallis very small
However, we don’t think there’s any However, we don’t think there’s any need to explain why someone got need to explain why someone got thisthis bridge hand as opposed to any bridge hand as opposed to any other equally improbable handother equally improbable hand
ReplyReply
If we carry this reasoning to its limit, then If we carry this reasoning to its limit, then nothing requires explanation.nothing requires explanation.
This is because every situation, if This is because every situation, if considered in enough detail, is improbableconsidered in enough detail, is improbable
For example: the precise arrangement of For example: the precise arrangement of the mess on my desk is improbable, but the mess on my desk is improbable, but calls for no explanation.calls for no explanation.
But if the papers were stacked so that But if the papers were stacked so that they formed a series of arches, that they formed a series of arches, that wouldwould require explanationrequire explanation
ContinuedContinued
Some values for constants would seem Some values for constants would seem merely “random” or uninteresting – merely “random” or uninteresting – not in need of explanationnot in need of explanation
The fine-tuning arguer says: the The fine-tuning arguer says: the constants of constants of ourour universe aren’t like universe aren’t like that. They fit together too remarkably that. They fit together too remarkably when looked at from the point of view when looked at from the point of view of lifeof life
Hence, they need to be explained.Hence, they need to be explained.
Objection: the Anthropic Objection: the Anthropic PrinciplePrinciple
The (weak) anthropic principle says that The (weak) anthropic principle says that the laws of the universe are “restricted” the laws of the universe are “restricted” by the conditions necessary for their by the conditions necessary for their being observedbeing observed
Translation: we couldn’t know that the Translation: we couldn’t know that the constants are what they are constants are what they are unlessunless those those constants were consistent with the constants were consistent with the existence of observersexistence of observers
Supposed conclusion: we shouldn’t be Supposed conclusion: we shouldn’t be surprised to find that the constants surprised to find that the constants permit lifepermit life
ReplyReply Of courseOf course we couldn’t observe constants we couldn’t observe constants
that ruled out our existence, butthat ruled out our existence, but The constants could still be improbableThe constants could still be improbable If we had discovered that a wide range If we had discovered that a wide range
of constants was compatible with life, of constants was compatible with life, the fine-tuning argument couldn’t get the fine-tuning argument couldn’t get off the groundoff the ground
What is surprising is that the constants What is surprising is that the constants came out right came out right even thougheven though “right” is “right” is such a narrow range.such a narrow range.
Compare (John Leslie's Compare (John Leslie's Example)Example)
Suppose that five minutes ago, I was Suppose that five minutes ago, I was blindfolded and fired at by 100 blindfolded and fired at by 100 marksmen with loaded rifles.marksmen with loaded rifles.
I couldn’t observe that I’m still alive I couldn’t observe that I’m still alive unless all the marksmen missedunless all the marksmen missed
However: it’s still However: it’s still surprisingsurprising that I’m that I’m alive, and calls for explanationalive, and calls for explanation
Objection: Many Objection: Many UniversesUniverses
Some physicists have posited Some physicists have posited theories that imply the existence of theories that imply the existence of many “sub-universes” with differing many “sub-universes” with differing laws and constantslaws and constants
If enough such universes exist, with If enough such universes exist, with enough variety, it wouldn’t be enough variety, it wouldn’t be surprising that one or more surprising that one or more permitted lifepermitted life
Compare:Compare:
If you toss a coin 10 times in a row If you toss a coin 10 times in a row and get 10 heads, you will be and get 10 heads, you will be surprised.surprised.
But if 1,000,000 people each toss a But if 1,000,000 people each toss a coin 10 times, then it would be coin 10 times, then it would be surprising if surprising if no oneno one got 10 heads in got 10 heads in a row. (The chances of 10 heads in a a row. (The chances of 10 heads in a row are 1 in 1024 for one tosser.)row are 1 in 1024 for one tosser.)
ReplyReply
IfIf the many-universes hypothesis is the many-universes hypothesis is true, it would provide an alternate true, it would provide an alternate explanation for “fine-tuning”explanation for “fine-tuning”
But there isn’t any empirical But there isn’t any empirical evidence for many universes, and evidence for many universes, and the theoretical arguments are very the theoretical arguments are very controversialcontroversial
Still...Still... If the theoreticians can make the many-If the theoreticians can make the many-
universe view respectable (show that it universe view respectable (show that it fits well with other pats of physics, is fits well with other pats of physics, is elegant, could explain a great deal...) then elegant, could explain a great deal...) then it would be a legitimate it would be a legitimate rivalrival to fine- to fine-tuning theistic explanationstuning theistic explanations
Compare: we said earlier that evolution Compare: we said earlier that evolution does most of its work against Paley by does most of its work against Paley by providing a legitimate rival viewproviding a legitimate rival view
We would then need to decide which view We would then need to decide which view is is overalloverall more likely more likely
And Still Further...And Still Further...
That is something people could That is something people could disagree about.disagree about.
Therefore: if many universes are a Therefore: if many universes are a good theoretical idea, that good theoretical idea, that doesn’tdoesn’t mean that theistic design is a bad mean that theistic design is a bad ideaidea
It means instead that we have more It means instead that we have more than one viable hypothesisthan one viable hypothesis
A Larger Issue: Who A Larger Issue: Who Designed the Designer?Designed the Designer?
David Hume (1711-David Hume (1711-1776) asks: 1776) asks: Isn’t God as Isn’t God as
remarkable as the remarkable as the things God is things God is supposed to explain?supposed to explain?
If so, doesn’t this call If so, doesn’t this call for positing a for positing a designer for God?designer for God?
If so, don’t we set If so, don’t we set forth on an infinite forth on an infinite regress?regress?
Mechanism vs. MagicMechanism vs. Magic Ordinary designers Ordinary designers
assemble parts in assemble parts in familiar waysfamiliar ways
Do we have any idea Do we have any idea how God assembled the how God assembled the world? If not, does the world? If not, does the design argument explain design argument explain anything?anything?
In Short...In Short...
If there is a supernatural designer, this If there is a supernatural designer, this being is as remarkable as the human eye being is as remarkable as the human eye (not to mention the bacterial flagellum!)(not to mention the bacterial flagellum!)
Consequently, it's not clear that positing Consequently, it's not clear that positing a Divine Designer explains much. It may a Divine Designer explains much. It may just postpone the problem.just postpone the problem.
But... But... shouldshould religion be in the business religion be in the business of giving “scientific” explanations?of giving “scientific” explanations?
More Generally...More Generally...
Wars between science and religion are Wars between science and religion are unfortunateunfortunate
They are unfortunate for science if they They are unfortunate for science if they put science in the position of addressing put science in the position of addressing questions outside its purviewquestions outside its purview
They are unfortunate for religion if they They are unfortunate for religion if they turn religion into a quasi-scientific turn religion into a quasi-scientific hypothesis that science can slowly chip hypothesis that science can slowly chip away ataway at
top related