Teleological arguement 21 mark and 9 mark essay answer

just an example answer to a question on the teleological arguement> if you have any improvements please let me know :)

HideShow resource information
Preview of Teleological arguement 21 mark and 9 mark essay answer

First 634 words of the document:

Why is the teleological argument a good argument for the existence of God? (21 marks)
The teleological argument suggests that by observing the order of the universe we can
demonstrate that there is a God. This argument uses inductive reasoning as it studies the universe
and then makes probable predictions from our observations. It is also a posteriori argument as it
uses knowledge we can only gain after we have observed the universe. Scientific evidence can be
used to back up this argument which makes it more credible than revelatory arguments. Lastly, the
argument also uses analogies like an arrow and its target and compares the universe to a watch or a
radio.
There are many different versions to the teleological argument and arguably one of the most
convincing is Thomas Aquinas's version. He argues that everything in the universe moves according
to a definite pattern. For example, acorn trees will always produce acorns and not light bulbs. We
understand that when things move towards a particular end they are either intelligent themselves or
have some intelligence moving them. For instance, an arrow will only hit the target if it is directed to
it. However most of the universe is unintelligent but it still moves in a definite pattern for example fire
will always give out light and heat. Therefore, Aquinas argues, there must be an intelligence
underpinning the universe. This is a well reasoned and logical argument and has proved to be very
difficult to refute which makes it a good argument for the existence of God.
Perhaps a weaker version of the teleological argument is that of Paley's. While Aquinas's
argument looks at the `telos' (intelligent movement) of the universe, Paley focuses on the complexity
of the universe. He suggests that if you saw a stone and the ground you would presume it had "lain
there forever." However, if you saw a watch on the ground you would inquire as to how it got there
because the watch is a complex and intricately balanced teleological system. Paley argues "every
indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the
works of nature." Therefore, Paley uses inductive reasoning to argue that if a complex and intricate
watch needs a designer then we can presume that the universe, which is also a complex and intricate
system, must have had a designer.
A more modern version of the teleological argument is the `finetuning' argument. Like
Paley's version this argument also relies on an analogy you stumble across a radio in the middle of
the woods. The radio is playing `BBC Radio One' and when you try to turn the tuner, even slightly,
the radio would stop playing. This would suggest that something intelligent must have been there
before you in order to finely tune the radio. When you observe the universe you can also see that it
is finelytuned for life. For instance, Davies describes the gravitational force of protons and neutrons
and suggests that the "link would be broken if the force were only a few percent weaker." He
argues that there are fundamental constants in the universe and if these vary, even by the smallest
amount, then life would have never come about. Therefore, he argues that the universe must have
been finelytuned by some intelligent entity otherwise life in the universe could not exist. This is
perhaps a stronger version of the teleological argument than Paley's as it uses scientific evidence to
try and prove God's existence.

Other pages in this set

Page 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

The teleological argument can be refuted successfully. Do you agree? (9 marks)
It will be argued that Paley's version of the argument can be refuted successfully. Arguably,
one of the most convincing objections to his version is that of Hume's. He argues that the designer of
the universe must be more complex then the universe so it must need a creator who is more
complex, who in turn must also need a creator who is more complex etc.…read more

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Philosophy resources:

See all Philosophy resources »See all resources »