Free “Teleological Arguments” (Pojman CH 3) Essay Sample

The question of the earth’s existence has been in the circles of thinking and discussion for many generations. Indeed, various arguments have attempted to explain the earth. Religions and human societies possess unique understanding and beliefs about this topic. This paper discusses various points and theories concerning the earth’s existence.

The other name for the teleological arguments is design arguments. Notably, they base their explanation of existence on the evidence of the presence of things. Thus, they use the evidence of existence to prove the existence of an intelligent designer. The hypothesis of a designer is plausible since what we see is empirical and what we can interact with through our senses must have a real origin. As such, the process of chance and necessity in explaining the world is somewhat implausible (Murray and Rea 146).
The argument I find most persuasive in Humes rebuttal to Paley’s design is that some things are machine-like since they are living organisms while others are products of design. Thus, the universe is not entirely by design (Murray and Rea 147).
Darwin’s response to the teleological arguments is that the universe is a result of chemical and physical activities among the substances on earth. Thus, the biological organisms evolved from simple life forms to the complex and intricate forms. There are unique mechanisms, which produced the complexity and diversity of life. Indeed, these mechanisms include the genetic drift, random selection, and variation, gene flow among other things (Murray and Rea 210).

“Theistic arguments” (Murray and Rea) 146-155

The fine-tuning thinkers argue that the existing structures and values of the forces and constants account for the suitability of the earth as the abode of man’s existence and plant life. Thus, any alterations to these values would render the universe uninhabitable. As well, the variations in the constants and forces would make the world lack matter but have only hydrogen (Murray and Rea 154). Thus, the universe was perfectly fine-tuned in order to hold life, having the right measures and settings for the forces and constants, which operate within it (Murray and Rea 153).
The multiverse objection argues that it is always better to think that an anomalous phenomenon is uncaused rather than to claim its supernatural causation. Therefore, it is not reasonable to argue that an unusual event had divine causation. Hence, according to the multiverse notion, it is preferable to explain events by not linking them to the supernatural causes (Murray and Rea 205). Therefore, it dismisses the unique causation thinking on the claim that they are flimsy, unsustainable, and unstable. Moreover, they base on speculations and much imagination, which are relative and may not have practical significance (Murray and Rea 207).

The multiverse notion indeed bears various difficulties in the universe’s existence debate.

Multiverse objection faces the problem of evidence. According to Prager, the argument is unsubstantiated since there is no shred of evidence as to the existence of the other universes. By the same vein, there could never be such evidence owing to the impossibility of human contact with it (Prager par 10).
Interestingly, there are cases where the indirect evidence makes all other things unequal. For instance, in the case of the Wrong laws argument, abnormal events whose implied rationalization leads to a supernatural cause render the no-cause notion implausible. Murray and Rea give the example of the Red Sea experience. The historicity of the event notwithstanding, forces a rational layperson to accept the possibility of supernatural intervention (Murray and Rea 206).
As well, the multiverse argument renders itself to monumental cases of coincidence. Indeed, there are events that correctly subscribe to the supernatural explanation. By extension, the multiverse notion supports fatalism and the perspective of life as an uncontrollable sequence of events happening to humans. Subsequently, this kind of standpoint leads to a situation of lawlessness and moral relativism. As a result, moral relativism 'relieves' man from all moral responsibility leading to inhumane behavior.

“A Critique of the Design Argument” Hume (C)

The mind and the brain are two intimately related components, which depend on each other. They are inextricably tied together such that what happens to one affects the other. Hume apparently argues for the disembodied survival (Murray and Rea 271).

“The Argument from Design” Swinburne (C)

Swinburne’s point in telling the parable of the kidnapper is to reinforce the teleological stand that we perceive order prior to recognizing the disorder. The universe has a vast, and all pervasive temporal order and nature conforms to a particular formula. Notably, these methods are recorded in the scientific laws formulated by man. Scientific laws are thus insufficient in explaining the world since they borrow from the pre-existing imperialistic conventions (Swinburne 194).

“A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God” Robin Collins: (C)

The idea in Collins’ prime principle of confirmation is that the validity of a given observation qualifies its assumptions about a particular phenomenon. Collins argues that if an object ‘O’ is under observation according to hypotheses one and two, the quality of these predictions is what will determine their authority in explaining O. Thus, if an observation is more likely with an assumption that theory one is valid than hypothesis two, hypothesis one is in an advantageous position of explanation (Himma par 71).
Collins rejects the atheistic many worlds theory on the basis that they are empirically not viable and thus rend to unwarranted speculations. Thus, mere chance was the basis of the existence of the earth (Himma par 74).

“Evolution and Convergence: Some Wider Considerations” Simon Conway Morris (C)

10. According to Gould, science and religion are distinct magisterial. The latter considers the physical aspects of the universe while the second concerns itself with the moral issues. Therefore, religion cannot make empirical claims whereas science cannot make the claims concerning morality or the supernatural realities (Murray and Rea 198). Dawkins nullifies the possibility of religion explaining existence claiming that religion must depend on science to explain existence. Notably, he maintains science can explain all phenomena. Evolution has enabled science to render a response to virtually every event of life. Professor Morris’s theory of evolution and convergence seem to agree with these notions. Notably, like the two opinions, Morris’s thesis traces the origins of biological realities, establishing their similarities (Murray and Rea 221).
11. Evolutionary emergence is the theory that all reality originated from some particular source in history. Thus, Prof. Morris believes that evolution follows a non-random pathway thus the biological properties of organisms evolved and are predictable (Morris 223).
12. I think Morris’ research on evolutionary convergence and directionality provides the theistic defender of the teleological argument with a potential response to the “Darwinian Objection” raised by Pojman. It underscores the reality of the first cause of all biological existence by tracing them back to their ancestral origins. Thus, is so doing, it negates the possibility of random chances in the existence of the universe.

Conclusion

The debates on the existence of the earth stimulate interesting and exciting thoughts. Certainly, there is much evidence as to the unique and orderly design of the universe. Indeed, science itself promotes the idea of a unified world. Empirical discoveries prove that the universe is orderly. Thus, the notion of the intelligent creator and supernatural designer carries a lot of weight in advancing the existence debate.

Works Cited

Himma, Kenneth E. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Seattle Pacific University. Web. 9 April, 2015
Morris, Simon Conway. Life's solution: inevitable humans in a lonely universe. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Murray, Michael J. and Rea, Michael C. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Print.
Prager, Dennis. “Why some scientists embrace the “Multiverse”. National Review. 2013. Web. 8 April, 2015.
Swinburne, Richard. "The Argument from Design." Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (2011): 191.