Design argument for the existence of God: Difference between revisions
imported>Peter J. King (→Sources: cat.) |
imported>Peter J. King (started expanding) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
The argument has traditionally been known either as the teleological argument or the argument from design. the former name has become less common, partly as a result of a move away from Latinate terminology, but partly because it is strictly relevant only to one kind of design argument: the claim that the world has some end or purpose. "Teleological" comes from the [[Greek language]] "telos" ("end", "completion", "fulfilment"). | The argument has traditionally been known either as the teleological argument or the argument from design. the former name has become less common, partly as a result of a move away from Latinate terminology, but partly because it is strictly relevant only to one kind of design argument: the claim that the world has some end or purpose. "Teleological" comes from the [[Greek language]] "telos" ("end", "completion", "fulfilment"). | ||
The term "argument from design" has largely been abandoned because it can be taken to beg the question: it assumes that we start from the fact of design, whereas the design argument looks at aspects of the world and argues that they are in fact instances of (intentional) design. Different philosophers have suggested different alternative names: [[Antony Flew]] calls it the argument ''to'' design,<ref>See, for example, his ''God and Philosophy'' (London: Hutchinson, 1966).</ref> while [[J.L. Mackie]] calls it the argument ''for'' design.<ref>See his ''The Miracle of Theism'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982).</ref> | The term "argument from design" has largely been abandoned because it can be taken to beg the question: it assumes that we start from the fact of design, whereas the design argument looks at aspects of the world and argues that they are in fact instances of (intentional) design. Different philosophers have suggested different alternative names: for example, [[Antony Flew]] calls it the argument ''to'' design,<ref>See, for example, his ''God and Philosophy'' (London: Hutchinson, 1966).</ref> while [[J.L. Mackie]] calls it the argument ''for'' design.<ref>See his ''The Miracle of Theism'' (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982).</ref> | ||
==The traditional | ==The traditional argument== | ||
The design argument can be traced back at least as far as [[Cicero]]: | |||
<blockquote>"The first point, Lucilius then said, does not seem to even need discussion, for what can be clearer and more obvious, when we have lifted our eyes to the sky, and have gazed upon the heavenly bodies, than that there exists some divine power of exalted intelligence by which these are ruled?"<ref>''[[De Natura Deorum]]'' II</ref></blockquote> | |||
Although [[William Paley]] wrote after [[David Hume]] had presented most of the key criticisms of the argument, it is his version that is probably best known: | |||
==The fine-tuning argument== | ==The fine-tuning argument== | ||
| Line 22: | Line 27: | ||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
*Cicero ''[http://oll.libertyfund.org/Texts/Cicero0070/NatureOfGods/0040_Bk.html De natura deorum]'' translated by Francis Brooks as ''On the Nature of the Gods''. London: Methuen, 1896. On-line text from The Online Library of Liberty. | |||
*David Hume ''Dialogues concerning Natural Religion'' | *David Hume ''Dialogues concerning Natural Religion'' | ||
*Peter J. King [http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shil0124/dialogues/Design_Argument.pdf "The Design Argument"] [PDF] (chapter of work in progress) | *Peter J. King [http://users.ox.ac.uk/~shil0124/dialogues/Design_Argument.pdf "The Design Argument"] [PDF] (chapter of work in progress) | ||
*John Barrow & Frank Tipler ''The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'' | *John Barrow & Frank Tipler ''The Anthropic Cosmological Principle'' | ||
*John Leslie [ed.] ''Physical Cosmology and Philosophy'' | *John Leslie [ed.] ''Physical Cosmology and Philosophy'' | ||
[[Category:Philosophy Workgroup]] | [[Category:Philosophy Workgroup]] | ||
[[Category:CZ Live]] | [[Category:CZ Live]] | ||
Revision as of 10:48, 30 March 2007
A design argument (or argument from design, teleological argument) is an a posteriori (empirical) argument for the existence of a god or gods. Design arguments typically claim that there is some feature of the world that either demands or makes more likely the existence of a designer.
Distinctions
The term "design" can be used to refer either to pattern or to purpose. In the former case, a design argument is concerned with the notion that the world, or part of the world, is ordered as opposed to being disorderly or chaotic, and that this requires an orderer. In the latter case, a design argument is concerned with the notion that the world, or part of the world, has some end or purpose, and thus requires a source of that purpose.
Three strands or versions of the design argument can be distinguished (though they are rarely found completely in isolation from each other):
- The pure strand — this argues that the world contains some design.
- The qualitative strand — this argues that the world contains a great deal of design (or more design than might be expected).
- The qualitative (usually biocentric, or even anthropocentric) strand — this argues that the world contains a spcific sort of design — usually involving the existence of life (especially human life).
Nomenclature
The argument has traditionally been known either as the teleological argument or the argument from design. the former name has become less common, partly as a result of a move away from Latinate terminology, but partly because it is strictly relevant only to one kind of design argument: the claim that the world has some end or purpose. "Teleological" comes from the Greek language "telos" ("end", "completion", "fulfilment").
The term "argument from design" has largely been abandoned because it can be taken to beg the question: it assumes that we start from the fact of design, whereas the design argument looks at aspects of the world and argues that they are in fact instances of (intentional) design. Different philosophers have suggested different alternative names: for example, Antony Flew calls it the argument to design,[1] while J.L. Mackie calls it the argument for design.[2]
The traditional argument
The design argument can be traced back at least as far as Cicero:
"The first point, Lucilius then said, does not seem to even need discussion, for what can be clearer and more obvious, when we have lifted our eyes to the sky, and have gazed upon the heavenly bodies, than that there exists some divine power of exalted intelligence by which these are ruled?"[3]
Although William Paley wrote after David Hume had presented most of the key criticisms of the argument, it is his version that is probably best known:
The fine-tuning argument
Notes
- ↑ See, for example, his God and Philosophy (London: Hutchinson, 1966).
- ↑ See his The Miracle of Theism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982).
- ↑ De Natura Deorum II
Sources
- Cicero De natura deorum translated by Francis Brooks as On the Nature of the Gods. London: Methuen, 1896. On-line text from The Online Library of Liberty.
- David Hume Dialogues concerning Natural Religion
- Peter J. King "The Design Argument" [PDF] (chapter of work in progress)
- John Barrow & Frank Tipler The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
- John Leslie [ed.] Physical Cosmology and Philosophy