Could someone please point out the flaws in my argument for the question: What is the argument from design intended to establish? Does it succeed?
The argument from design, or the teleological argument, is renowned as one of a number of ‘proofs’ for the existence of God, the deity of the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths – namely, Judaism Christianity and Islam. It is intended to establish the existence of such a deity based on the assumption that the order and complexity exhibited by our universe is not merely one of its natural features but actually implies there has to be a designer behind it, namely God. Throughout history, the argument from design has been supported by many, from the medieval Catholic priest Thomas Aquinas to the American biochemist Michael Behe. Nevertheless, the justifications put forth by the teleological argument have been refuted and countered by a number of critics. Subsequently, I personally believe the argument from design is not successful in providing an adequate explanation of the existence of God.
Although the teleological argument is technically an argument for the existence of a designer for our universe, most of the classic versions of the argument are linked with monotheism and thus argues for the existence of the omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God of Abrahamic religions. As a result, I will firstly be evaluating the argument from design based on those associated with the existence of such a divinity.
Throughout history, many variations of the teleological argument have been created but the basic argument is as follows:
The universe is too complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful and beautiful to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
Therefore, the universe must have been created by a sentient, intelligent, wise and purposeful being.
God is a sentient, intelligent, wise and purposeful being.
There is a problem with the first premise. It states that the world is too complex to have been created by accident but does not argue that point. it is an assertion and an assumption.
the second and third premises are also statements which relate more assumptions to the first assumption.
By your logic i could say that you would have to be too lucky to win the lottery.
This is sound but i do agree with the first post that the first premise is not necessarily true, for example a spider’s web is beautiful and complex but the spider is not necessarily an intelligent being; furthermore beauty if generally the result of evolution ((do not worry im not a believer in Dawnkins’ work i am a theist). Perhaps you should look at the teleogical argument from what is called the ‘aethsetic principle’ that the fact that humans can perceive beauty is proof for God as it is empirically useless to enjoy a piece of music yet we can so we have this hardwired into our systems as humans by a God. Just a thought though, good luck and i have to say that your summary of the argument is very well written especially from my presuppostion that God does exist.
This is sound but i do agree with the first post that the first premise is not necessarily true, for example a spider’s web is beautiful and complex but the spider is not necessarily an intelligent being; furthermore beauty if generally the result of evolution ((do not worry im not a believer in Dawnkins’ work i am a theist). Perhaps you should look at the teleogical argument from what is called the ‘aethsetic principle’ that the fact that humans can perceive beauty is proof for God as it is empirically useless to enjoy a piece of music yet we can so we have this hardwired into our systems as humans by a God. Just a thought though, good luck and i have to say that your summary of the argument is very well written especially from my presuppostion that God does exist.
You are shifting the concepts but the generally fallacy still exists.
I would also challenge the validity of the observations employed. You say that listening to classical music is useless (supposing from a dawrinian/evolutionary) yet we enjoy it, therefore the lack of evolutions ability to explain this must mean that it is something given to us by God,. but in truth this is simple another assumption. It is one option, but not necessarily the only option or the true option.
Even if it were true that classical music serves no purposes (i could argue that it instills a sense of harmony into the human brain or something unknown like that), just because one option is false does not mean that the only other option presented is the correct one. there are always unexplored options. This is the fallacy called “the false dilemma”.
Since mom didn’t pack my lunch, dad must have… This is a structural example of the false dilemma…
I am afraid you are misunderstanding my comment; this may be due to your language games’ rules judging my own, either way you are in the state of ignorance and dogmatic slumber (that is Immanuel Kant’s phrase if you are unaware). There is a fine line between ‘empirically useless’ and useless, i would never say that any form of art is useless but i have no reason to say that it is not empirically useless. Therefore because we are able to perceive things to be beautiful , although they are empirically useless, it shows that there is some intelligence that has enabled us to step outside of the viscous circle of evolution and be human beings.
Furhtermore, the concept of design leading to God is absurd. Experiencing design requires experience through the 5 senses. Knowledge from the 5 senses ultimately leads us to sceptisicsm, especially if we are to fall into the trap of the problem of unductin (refer to Hume).
Overall i guess you should read more books and not attempt such a sophisticated subject as philosophy untill you have done so.
Even if we accept 1 as a given, we have no way to relate 1-2 with 3 aside from raw assertion. Furthermore, the argument gives us no knowledge of the designer in question (part 4), unless we have already been so culturally inculcated with a particular conception of 3 that we can think of no other. But given the plurality of traditions to which we have been exposed, such an argument can’t easily be made in the modern world.
I’m going to break down your argument into premises and a conclusion, something I may or may not have learned to do from a book…
So premise one: “Art is empirically useless”
Premise two " We are able to perceive things to be beautiful despite empirical uselessness"
Conclusion " Some intelligence must have enabled this since it wasn’t evolution"
I have a problem with the first premise in that I do not understand your meaning of the terms “empirically useless”. From the limited number of books I have read, I have so far gathered that empiricism is when you compare observations. It is a matter of evidence collection for gaining information/knowledge.
So to say something empirically useless would mean that it does not assist in any way the empirical hunt for knowledge. Let’s call it “zero scientific value” for now.
What does premise one have to do with premise two? Beauty is not something which we primarily see or ought to primarily see in empirical evidence or things with scientific value. We are attracted to things like the opposite sex. Perhaps we are attracted to art because it can relieve stress and relax the mind. Some geeks are attracted to science because it is intrinsically enjoyable, some because they want to build a time machine in order to attract a woman.
We are attracted to the busty shape of hips, breasts and even in apples, but these largely arbitrary shapes are empirically useless right?, so did God or someone intelligent make us attracted to them or design them? No, evolution did. Big hips mean an easier birth for your children, big breasts mean lots of milk. The distinct shape and color of the apple is appealing to some, and whether this is an acquired preference or not natural selection (one of the key proponents of evolution) can explain this phenomenon well.
Apparently each species of orchid flower has it’s own specifically evolved moth or bug which lives off the pollen/nectar in the orchid and at the same time pollinates the flower itself. Darwin found an orchid with 35 centimeter deep nectar reservoir and theorized that there must exist a specific moth with a 35 centimeter proboscis in order to pollinate it. People thought he was mad, and then after his death they found the moth of his theory and validated it.
Now i do say that there is a reason for everything, but i don;t think that every reason must fit the patterns we see or be the result of an intelligence with an intention.
Orchids probably began with a rapidly changing variety of flowers along with a rapidly changing variety of moth. As particular flowers changed in physical features, those specific moths who could effectively harvest the nectar survived and both that specific moth and that specific plant were able to spawn future generations. Those moths who couldn’t find an orchid to feed from and the orchids which could not find a moth to be pollinated by both died out. And so, many differing and prominent strains developed and became more and more specific as selections made by incremental changes in the moth and the flower continually influenced and drove change.
You might ask yourself what this has to do with what we are discussing . What i am trying to express here is is that the ways in which we are specific are made this way by a series of mutations and selections caused arbitrarily by our environment, experiences and genetic make up. Some things we like because of evolution, some things we do not like because of evolution. The other desires and dislikes, the infatuations, the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to (that’s Shakespeare) depend entirely on the uniqueness and specifics of you, not those of your race or of evolutionary theory or of whatever you mean by “empirical uselessness/usefulness”. We are just as easily mutated for liking art as we are for liking the opposite sex. It is all a configuration of the mind.
Your conclusion is still an example of the false dilemma. “Since it wasn’t x, it must have been y” when z has yet to be discussed…
Your objection to evolution though vigorously argued in my opinion lacks imagination; you lack imagination.
It takes the concept of an intelligent designer for you to fathom how in all our random or absurd or perfect or wonderful or specific ways things came to be the way they are, where for me things appear much more consistent with a much more realistic, practical, and scientific view of the world (one where we aren’t the super special children of an intelligent designer)…
It’s o.k to hate me. If you must do so in order to clasp onto what makes you happy in life, like an esoteric, simplifying and mentally comforting view of the world, then please do so. I have nothing against and see no strangeness or evidence of design when people find delight in the fantastic and fear or discomfort in the mundane.
. What i am trying to express here is is that the ways in which we are specific are made this way by a series of mutations and selections caused arbitrarily by our environment, experiences and genetic make up. Some things we like because of evolution, some things we do not like because of evolution. The other desires and dislikes, the infatuations, the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to (that’s Shakespeare) depend entirely on the uniqueness and specifics of you, not those of your race or of evolutionary theory or of whatever you mean by “empirical uselessness/usefulness”. We are just as easily