Intelligent Design: Crash Course Philosophy #11

Summary

In this Crash Course Philosophy episode, the teleological argument for God's existence is explored through William Paley's Watchmaker Analogy, comparing the complexity of a watch to the intricacies of the natural world, suggesting an intelligent designer. The video also delves into objections to this argument, such as the presence of natural flaws and the alternative explanation of natural selection. Modern defenses, like Richard Swinburne's probability argument and the Fine-Tuning Arguments, are presented, highlighting the ongoing debate in the philosophical community.

Takeaways

• 📜 The script discusses various arguments for the existence of God, including the ontological argument of Anselm and the cosmological arguments of Aquinas.
• 🔍 It highlights the teleological argument, also known as Intelligent Design, which is still popular today and was popularized by William Paley using the Watchmaker Analogy.
• 🤔 Paley's argument by analogy suggests that the complexity and purposefulness observed in the world implies the existence of an intelligent creator, similar to how a watch implies a watchmaker.
• 🧐 The script challenges the teleological argument by pointing out disanalogies, such as the existence of imperfections in nature that do not align with the idea of a perfect designer.
• 👀 It mentions the human eye's blind spot and male nipples as examples of natural features without apparent purpose, questioning the idea of a purposeful creator.
• 🔧 Paley's response to such imperfections is that the mere existence of a creator is the point, regardless of our understanding of the creation process.
• 🌐 The script introduces the concept of natural selection and random mutation as an alternative explanation to the complexity and functionality observed in living organisms, challenging the need for a divine designer.
• 🤷‍♂️ David Hume's objection to the teleological argument is presented, suggesting that the presence of flaws in the world implies a flawed creator, which contradicts the idea of an omnipotent God.
• 📊 Modern defenses of the teleological argument, such as Richard Swinburne's probability argument and the Fine-Tuning Arguments, are mentioned, which shift from certainty to probability claims about the likelihood of a divine creator.
• 🔄 The script addresses the counterargument that probability claims about the universe's origin are difficult to make with only one sample set—the universe we inhabit.
• 🌟 The video concludes by setting the stage for a future discussion on the nature of God, should the existence of a deity be established.

Q & A

What is the teleological argument, also known as?

The teleological argument is also known as Intelligent Design. It posits that the complexity and purposefulness observed in the natural world imply the existence of an intelligent designer, often identified as God.

Who originally formulated the fifth argument for God's existence, which later became known as the teleological argument?

Thomas Aquinas originally posited the fifth argument, which later became known as the teleological argument, but it was popularized by William Paley in the late 1700s.

What is the Watchmaker Analogy and how does it relate to the teleological argument?

The Watchmaker Analogy, given by William Paley, is an argument by analogy used to support the teleological argument. It suggests that just as the complexity and purpose of a watch imply the existence of a watchmaker, the complexity and purpose in nature imply the existence of a divine creator.

What is the main criticism of the teleological argument presented in the script?

The main criticism is that the teleological argument is inconsistent with our scientific understanding of the universe, such as the theory of evolution, and that it fails to account for aspects of the natural world that do not appear to have a clear purpose or are flawed.

How does the counterargument to the teleological argument suggest we should approach the existence of purpose in the world?

The counterargument suggests that we should not invent purposes for natural phenomena that are not inherently there. Instead, we should accept scientific explanations, such as natural selection and random mutation, for the complexity and functionality observed in the world.

What is the Fine-Tuning Argument and how does it relate to the modern defense of the teleological argument?

The Fine-Tuning Argument is a modern defense of the teleological argument that accepts the Big Bang and evolution but maintains that the precise conditions necessary for life were most likely set up by God, rather than by accident.

What is the role of probability in Richard Swinburne's modern teleological argument?

Richard Swinburne argues that even if there are alternative explanations for the universe, we should consider the explanation that is most probable. He believes it is more probable that God designed the world than that it came about through the chance of evolutionary processes.

How does the script address the issue of imperfections in the natural world in relation to the teleological argument?

The script points out that the existence of imperfections and harmful phenomena in the natural world, such as blind spots in the eye or tissues prone to cancer, poses a challenge to the teleological argument, suggesting a flawed world implies a flawed creator.

What is the Socratic method mentioned in the script and how does it apply to the teleological argument?

The Socratic method refers to a form of dialogue in which one questions assumptions and refines viewpoints in response to objections. In the context of the teleological argument, it suggests that supporters should modify and strengthen their views in response to objections, rather than rejecting them outright.

How does the script suggest that the teleological argument has evolved over time?

The script suggests that the teleological argument has evolved from making assertions about certainty to making claims about probability, which are considered easier to defend. Modern teleologists have also shifted from direct assertions of design to arguments based on the improbability of certain conditions arising by chance.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 The Teleological Argument and the Watchmaker Analogy

The first paragraph introduces the teleological argument, also known as Intelligent Design, which is a modern adaptation of one of Thomas Aquinas's arguments for God's existence. It was popularized by William Paley through the Watchmaker Analogy. This analogy posits that just as the complexity and purposeful design of a watch implies a watchmaker, the intricate and goal-oriented natural world implies an intelligent creator. Paley's argument by analogy suggests that if we accept the designed nature of man-made objects, we should also accept the designed nature of the world, leading to the conclusion of God's existence. The paragraph also covers objections to the argument, such as the existence of natural elements that seem purposeless or flawed, and the potential for humans to impose imagined purposes onto natural phenomena.

05:04

🔬 Counterarguments and Modern Defenses of the Teleological Argument

The second paragraph delves into counterarguments and modern defenses of the teleological argument. It starts by discussing the counterargument that we should not arbitrarily assign purposes to natural phenomena without evidence, as this would make us the creators of purpose rather than recognizing inherent ones. It also mentions alternative explanations for the complexity of life, such as natural selection and random mutation, which provide a scientific basis for the world's design without invoking a divine creator. The paragraph then addresses objections that point out the imperfections in the natural world, suggesting a flawed creator. Modern defenses of the teleological argument include probability-based arguments and the Fine-Tuning Arguments, which propose that the precise conditions for life are more likely the result of divine design than mere chance. The paragraph concludes by discussing the limitations of these modern arguments, such as the inability to make accurate probability claims based on a single sample set, which is our current universe.

Keywords

💡Teleological Argument

The teleological argument, also known as Intelligent Design, is a philosophical argument that posits the existence of God based on the perceived purpose and order in the universe. It suggests that the complexity and purposeful design observed in nature imply an intelligent creator. In the script, this concept is central to understanding William Paley's Watchmaker Analogy, which compares the intricacies of a watch to the complexity of life, implying a designer.

💡Watchmaker Analogy

The Watchmaker Analogy is a specific instance of the teleological argument presented by William Paley. It argues that just as a watch's complexity and purpose suggest a watchmaker, the complexity and apparent purpose in nature suggest a divine designer. The script uses this analogy to illustrate the reasoning behind the belief in an intelligent creator.

💡Ontological Argument

The ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God that is based on the concept of God as a perfect being. It was proposed by Anselm and suggests that God's existence is necessary because God is defined as a being greater than which no greater can be conceived. The script mentions this argument as one of the historical attempts to prove God's existence.

💡Cosmological Arguments

Cosmological arguments are a class of philosophical arguments for the existence of God that focus on the origin of the universe or the existence of everything. The script refers to the four cosmological arguments of Aquinas, which are based on the concepts of motion, causation, contingency, and degrees of perfection found in the universe.

💡Argument by Analogy

An argument by analogy is a form of inductive reasoning that compares two situations to suggest that what is true for one is likely true for the other. In the script, this method is used by Paley to draw parallels between the design observed in a watch and the design observed in nature, leading to the conclusion of a designer.

💡Natural Selection

Natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution, first described by Charles Darwin, which explains how species adapt and evolve over time due to environmental pressures. The script presents natural selection as an alternative explanation to the teleological argument, suggesting that the complexity of life can be explained through evolutionary processes rather than divine design.

💡Fine-Tuning Arguments

Fine-Tuning Arguments are a modern form of the teleological argument that accept the scientific truths of the Big Bang and evolution but argue that the precise conditions necessary for life are more likely the result of divine design than mere chance. The script discusses these arguments as a way that some modern philosophers defend the teleological perspective.

💡Probability

In the context of the script, probability refers to the likelihood of certain outcomes or conditions occurring. Modern teleologists like Richard Swinburne use probability to argue that it is more likely that God designed the universe than that it came about through chance, as in evolutionary processes.

💡Disanalogy

A disanalogy is a counterargument to an argument by analogy, demonstrating that the two situations being compared are not similar enough for the analogy to hold. The script suggests using disanalogies to refute the teleological argument by pointing out differences between man-made objects and natural phenomena.

💡Purposefulness

Purposefulness, or teleology, refers to the idea that things have a purpose or goal. In the script, Paley argues that the purposeful design observed in objects like watches and the complexity of the natural world implies an intelligent designer. This concept is central to the teleological argument.

💡Evolutionary Biology

Evolutionary biology is the scientific study of the evolution of species over time. The script mentions the impact of evolutionary biology on the teleological argument, suggesting that scientific understanding has challenged the need for a divine designer to explain the complexity of life.

Highlights

Introduction to the teleological argument for God's existence, also known as Intelligent Design.

Discussion of the ontological argument by Anselm and the cosmological arguments by Aquinas.

Modern philosophers' skepticism towards traditional arguments for God's existence due to scientific inconsistencies.

William Paley's popularization of the teleological argument in the late 1700s.

Explanation of the argument by analogy, using the Watchmaker Analogy to suggest a designer for the universe.

The concept of teleology as goal-oriented or purposeful in both man-made objects and natural phenomena.

Paley's analogy comparing the complexity of a watch to that of a living organism, implying a designer.

Critique of the teleological argument by pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies in nature.

Paley's response to the critique, arguing that lack of understanding does not negate creation.

Counterargument that parts of nature without apparent purpose undermine the teleological argument.

Bertrand Russell's critique of the tendency to invent purposes for natural phenomena.

Alternative explanation for the complexity of life through natural selection and random mutation.

David Hume's argument that the world's flaws imply a flawed creator, challenging the teleological argument.

Modern defenses of the teleological argument, including Richard Swinburne's probability-based approach.

Fine-Tuning Arguments, suggesting God set precise conditions for life, as a modern response to the teleological argument.

Critique of modern teleological arguments based on the inability to make probability claims with only one sample set.

The Socratic method's application in refining the teleological argument in response to objections.

Squarespace advertisement and Crash Course Philosophy production details.

Transcripts

Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Over the centuries, the effort to craft a perfect, bullet-proof argument for the existence of God has taken many forms.

There was the ontological argument of Anselm. There were the four cosmological arguments of Aquinas.

And they still have their supporters. But many modern philosophers feel that they’re

simply too flawed -- too inconsistent with our scientific understanding of the universe -- to be convincing today.

But there was a fifth argument posited by Thomas Aquinas.

And it was popularized several hundred years after his time -- in the late 1700s, by the

English Christian philosopher William Paley. And this argument for God’s existence is

still around today, too. In fact, it’s one of the most popular.

It’s known as the teleological argument. You may know it as Intelligent Design.

[Theme Music]

To make his case for the existence of God, William Paley gave us what’s known as an argument by analogy.

This form of inductive argument invites us to consider a particular state of affairs

-- let’s just call it Situation A -- about which we’re already likely to have certain

beliefs, and then likens it to Situation B, with which we are less familiar.

The idea is that, in the interest of consistency, whatever conclusions we’ve drawn about A,

we ought to draw about B as well.

You can make an argument by analogy about anything, but Paley used it to talk about

God, in what’s known as the Watchmaker Analogy. He asked us to imagine what we’d think if

we found a watch on the ground. Would we imagine that the watch simply appeared randomly, spontaneously,

on its own? Or would we see the complexity of it, and notice that its parts seem to come

together in a particular way in order to accomplish a goal? If so, wouldn’t we think that the

watch must have been made by someone, on purpose?

Paley was arguing that the teleology demonstrated by a watch would lead us to conclude that

it was designed by an intelligent creator with a particular end in mind.

Teleological means goal-oriented, or purposeful.

And we can easily pick out the teleologies of man-made objects. Got a mug here, as an

example -- it was created with a particular teleology in mind. It was designed to hold

a liquid without leaking. It’s got a handle put here deliberately, in such a way that

human fingers could easily fit into it. And its composition is such that it’ll keep

the liquid inside warm without burning the hand that holds it.

We wouldn’t assume that a coffee cup would simply come to be, exhibiting such perfect

design for its particular function, without someone having created it that way on purpose.

So, in the same way that the teleology of a cup implies the existence of a cup maker,

and that of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, Paley saw teleology in the

world, and assumed from that, God’s existence.

He continued his analogy by comparing a watch to a living organism.

Look at the complexity of the human body. Heart and lungs working together, producing

sweat to keep ourselves from overheating, transforming food into energy – we’re

just generally amazing all around.Look at how elements of the natural world operate

according to complex laws that sustain a beautiful, natural harmony. Paley said this couldn't possibly just

have happened, any more than the design of a pocket watch could just have happened.

There must be a designer.

If you accept this analogy, then you agree with Paley that, just like the purposefulness

of a watch compels us to believe in a watchmaker, the purposefulness of the world compels us

to believe in a worldmaker – God.

And you might think this is a fantastic argument. It might even be what motivates your own belief in God.

There are lots of people who say things like sunsets and babies show them that there must be a designer-god.

But some of you probably aren’t buying it – and you know what to do!

Arguments are refuted by counterarguments, so when you want to refute an argument by

analogy, you offer a disanalogy. Basically, you demonstrate that Situation A and Situation

B are dissimilar enough that the analogy doesn’t actually work.

So, to object to Paley, we have to identify a way in which elements of the natural world

– like human bodies – are relevantly dissimilar to watches. When we’re talking about a watch,

an objector might say, it obviously had a creator. After all, we can take it apart and

see clearly how the gears fit together to move the hands and keep time. But there’s

so much in the natural world that isn’t understandable in the same way. For instance,

why would God have designed our eyes to have a blind spot?

Paley responded that it doesn’t matter whether we can understand how something was created.

The point is simply that it was. He might point out, for instance, that I actually don’t

understand the inner workings of my phone. But I still know it had a creator.

Whether or not I can understand how it was created is beside the point.

Next objection: Some parts of nature seem to be without purpose. A blind spot obviously

doesn’t have any function, and neither do nipples on a man.

Paley’s response here was: Just because we don't know there's a purpose doesn't mean there isn't one.

But this is a problem, too, because his whole argument for believing in God is that you

should look at the world and see purpose. So if we see some things in the world that

are working great, and really seem to have complexity and a definite use, and others

that don’t, that’s a flaw in his argument.

What’s more, the absence of any obvious purpose in things can lead people to start

searching for purposes, and effectively make them up. For instance, I could find a purpose

for this finger – I could use it as a nose-picker. It would make a good one – it’s just the

right size to really get in there and dig around. But was my finger designed to pick noses?

Probably not. 20th century British philosopher Bertrand Russell made fun of this

purpose-finding tendency, by pointing out that you could look at a bunny and form the

belief that God gave it a fuzzy white tail so hunters would have something to shoot at.

The point is: If we're the ones inventing purposes, rather than recognizing ones that

are inherently there, then we’re the real creators of purpose in the world, not God.

Basically, if you believe that God made eyes for seeing, then you also have to believe

that he designed fingers as nose-pickers, and rabbit tails as bullseyes, and blind spots

as ways for us to get into car accidents. So the counterargument here is: We don't get

to just pick and choose, and say God designed the stuff we want him to have designed, and not the other stuff.

Rather than searching for disanalogies, another way Paley’s argument has been countered

is with an alternative explanation for Condition B. Paley says bodies are purposeful, and from

there concludes that the purpose had to have been put there by an intelligent creator.

But another explanation for how bodies came to have the complexity and functionality they

have today, is natural selection and random mutation. We can concede that the existence

of a designer-god helped make sense of the origins the our world in a pre-scientific age,

but now we have a perfectly good scientific explanation for how the complexity of the world came about.

So, who needs a watchmaker when you have evolution by natural selection?

Another objection to Paley’s case came from 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume,

who pointed out that, if we’re to take the analogy seriously, we’d need to conclude

that the creator that Paley posits seems to make a lot of mistakes.

And not just blind spots. Like, how about hurricanes?

Or why would he make our bodies with certain tissues -- like in the breast, or prostate,

or colon -- that are so incredibly prone to cancer? Why would he make umbilical cords

that could wrap around a baby’s neck? Why would he make butterflies have to wait for

hours, immobile, for their wings dry as soon as they come out of their chrysalis, making

them easy prey for predators?

Hume pointed out that the world is chock full of stuff that looks cruel, ridiculous, impractical,

and contrary to life. A flawed world, he said, implies a flawed creator.

Now, the development of evolutionary biology over the past couple hundred years has taken

a pretty heavy toll on the teleological argument. But it still has many supporters, and their

method of defending their view is a good model for the way the Socratic method is supposed to work.

When your opponents raise objections to your theory, you need to either reject it, or modify

it in a way that responds to those objections. So, supporters of the teleological argument

set out to modify – and strengthen – their view.

Here are a couple of modern responses:

Contemporary British philosopher Richard Swinburne gives us a modern teleological argument with

a twist of probability. He says that, even if there’s another possible explanation

for the universe, we should go with the explanation that’s most likely to be true. And he says

that it’s simply more probable that God designed the world, than that it came about

through the pure chance of evolutionary processes.

Likewise, another class of modern defenses of the teleological argument are collectively

known as Fine-Tuning Arguments. These arguments accept the Big Bang and evolution as scientific

truths, but they maintain that, for the evolution of life to occur, it’s most likely that

God set up the precise conditions that it required, rather than them coming about by accident.

After all, if Earth were just a little closer to, or farther from, the sun…

If the composition of our atmosphere was slightly different…

If the content of our oceans was something other than what it is …

Life would have never taken root.

A lot of people think these modernized arguments have more going for them than Paley’s did.

This is partly because these types of teleologists have moved from making assertions about certainty

to making claims about probability, which seem easier to get right and to defend.

Objectors will counter by saying that the problem with these arguments is, you can’t

really make a probability claim when you only have a sample set of one. If we had multiple

Earths that we could examine, we could see how likely any particular adaptation is, or

how unique the conditions for life are. Then we would know if it were likely or unlikely

to happen without God. But we can’t know that -- at least not now -- because we can

only access this one world, where we know that things evolved as they did. Thus, the

counterargument goes, Swinburne and other modern teleologists are right to recognize that if

things were slightly different, then life maybe wouldn’t have evolved or would have evolved very differently.

But that is wholly different from claiming that it’s unlikely to have happened in the first place.

So, today you learned about the teleological argument, objections to it, and responses

to those objections, and the responses to the responses to the objections.

But we’ve spent an awful lot of time talking about God’s existence, so next time,

let’s consider what god is like if it exists.

This episode is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace helps to create websites, blogs

or online stores for you and your ideas. Websites look professionally designed regardless of

skill level, no coding required. Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over

to their channel and check out amazing shows like The Art Assignment, The Good Stuff, and Blank on Blank.

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of all of these amazing people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.