Philosophy paper - teleological argument Tuesday, May 15 2007

The teleological argument, or the argument from design, is where philosophy and science converge with one another. Like the ontological and the cosmological arguments, the teleological argument tries to prove the existence of God through an inference to the best explanation. Another name for the teleological argument is the design argument and proponents of this argument try to prove that there is an intelligent designer of the universe.

An inference to the best explanation takes an argument with two opposing sides, examines the evidence in favor and against each of the sides and attempts to conclude which side is more convincing and better supported by evidence. Whichever side is better supported by evidence is the side of the argument that would be decided as correct in accordance to the inference to the best explanation. Inferences to the best explanation happen often, even though people do not realize this is what they are doing. For example, an accused murderer stands before a jury. All the evidence has been presented: this man was present at the time of his wife’s death, they had gotten into an argument earlier that week and the knife used was covered in his fingerprints, although whoever had been the murderer could have forgotten to wipe off the knife before hand because it was a regular kitchen knife that the husband had been known to use while making family dinners. However, people who knew the couple testified that he was a very loving husband and father. The jury would then have to make an inference to the best explanation based on the evidence that had been presented and determine whether or not the husband should be charged with murder.

In philosophy, the inference to the best explanation follows in a similar manner. Like in a scientific experiment, all the possible hypothesis, or explanations for a particular problem, must be taken into account and examined closely before a decision is reached. The second part of the teleological argument is an inference to the best explanation.The first part of the teleological argument claims that there is design in the world, which can be proven by science. Our bodies, the physical constants of the universe and even something as seemingly simple as a single-celled bacterium exhibit an extraordinary amount of complexity that proponents of the teleological argument will claim that could not simply come about as a result of chance. The second part of the argument claims that designed things have a designer. If there was a painting in a room, someone must have designed that painting. It is the same idea for the universe. Since the universe appears to be designed, then it makes sense that there was someone or something who designed it.

To fully understand the teleological argument, one must first understand scientific evidence. The data that the teleological argument attempts to explain is the complexity of the universe. There are several aspects of the universe that are extremely complex and have a small margin for diversion. For example, there are several physical constants of the universe that cannot be altered even by less than 0.01% (Strobel 138). Proponents of the teleological argument view this fact and interpret this as evidence that there must be something out there that set the physical laws and constants of the universe. There is also evidence in other areas of science, such as biochemistry, biology and psychology.

The other alternative to explain this is the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution basically says that life began and came to what it is today through a series of mutations – alterations in genetic coding – as a result of stress on an organism from its environment. These mutations were passed onto offspring if they were more successful than not. If it was a harmful mutation, the organism died before it could pass on its genetic material. Over time, this would cause a population to diversify itself and evolve into different species over millions and billions of years.

The inference to the best explanation requires that all the known evidence be examined before deciding a verdict. Like with the jury deciding whether or not the man was guilty of murder, philosophers must take everything into consideration when deciding whether God is a better explanation than evolution is. Because evolution is based primarily on chance – it is not certain if an organism will mutate or not and a harmful mutation will mean no reproduction for the organism and no passing on its genetic material to offspring – proponents of this argument have decided that the odds in favor of evolution are so slim that God must certainly be a better explanation of the physical evidence.

The teleological argument faces several challenges. The most apparent ones are that the world does not exhibit design to the extent that many proponents of this argument believe that it does. If the world does not exhibit design and the teleological argument depends on that, then the teleological argument must be false. Another challenge it faces is from the theory of evolution. This theory is especially popular among the scientific and intellectual communities, as well as among atheists. If the universe did exhibit design – most scientists would agree that there is complexity in the universe that exists – and the theory of evolution is true, then there would be no designer needed. If God is the designer, and there is no designer needed, then God is not needed.The second challenge that the teleological argument faces – specifically for those who attempt to use this argument in defense of the Judeo-Christian God – is that the most the teleological argument will produce would be proof of some kind of designer of the universe. It could be the Judeo-Christian God, or it could be Allah or the Greek gods or even the Force. If the teleological argument was true, all it would do is disprove atheism, which is the belief that there is no god of any kind.

This argument is a weaker argument than any other argument that we have covered in class thus far. The first part of the argument is stronger than the second part because most people can agree that there is complexity in the universe. Complexity is indicative of design of some sort. The second part of the argument is weak in the fact that there are other plausible explanations to explain the evidence that is seen, namely evolution. However, the weak point in evolution is that it does not explain how life began very well. This is where the existence of a creator would explain what we have observed better than evolution does. Yet, however weak the teleological argument is – specifically the second premise with its inference to the best explanation – it is still stronger than the alternative.

I wrote this paper for a class a few weeks ago. I hope you enjoy.

-Aidoann

No Responses »

 

Happy Belated Mother’s Day… Monday, May 14 2007

I found this on another blog and it seemed appropriate to re-post… happy belated mother’s day to all the mothers out there. -Aidoann

Once there was a little girl named Wendy.

She dreamed of all of the things that she could be.

First she wanted to be a nurse…
She would care for the sick with gentleness, patience, and love.

Then she wanted to be a teacher…
She would teach children and help them have the best chance for success.

In high school, she thought that being a religious minister would allow her to provide comfort, care, and spiritual sustenance.

A little older, and she wanted to be a lawyer…
She would defend the poor and defenseless.

Finally, she wanted to be a doctor…
She would unravel all the mysteries of what made people sick and how to cure them.

Wendy got married, and she became a mom.
Her little boy flourished and learned with ease, his future was bright, and Wendy was delighted. But his abilities seemed to change, and he seemed to be ill. Wendy’s little boy was diagnosed with autism.

Wendy was scared, so she asked the angels, “Who can help my little boy?”
And the angels said, “You can help him, you will be everything that you always wanted to be.”

“But, angels,” said Wendy, “I am scared that my child will not be all that I’d hoped he could be.”

“He isn’t right now,” replied the angels, “But he is all of the things that you can help him become.”

—Anonymous

No Responses »

 

Eugenics Saturday, May 12 2007

So, unlike how most people start a blog, I’m starting mine off with a rather controversial topic: the topic of eugenics. Recently, it’s come to my attention that, as a scientist living in the modern world, there is also a certain danger to scientific progress. Science has come so far even in the past thirty years. I mean, mouth-pipetting in the lab…. seriously. If that’s not a good way to infect onself with E. coli or get ethanol poisoning, I don’t know what is. Science has made undoubtable progress and mostly, it’s been a good thing.

 However, it can be taken too far. I have recently been reading in Autism Vox, a regularly updated blog by a mother with an autistic son and there’s been a lot of controversy over prenatal genetic screening. Apparently, there are many cases when the parents want to take the life of their unborn child if it is found out that their child will have a lifelong disability, such as Down’s syndrome. This is grievious to know, especially since scientific advancement means more prenatal genetic tests will be available.

My point is not in arguing whether or not these tests are ethical or not, but rather where we should draw the line, if at all. If enough genetic screening gets developed so that we can know the genetic makeup and any conditions that the child will have before the child is born, who is to say when it is moral to have abortion because of the child’s condition. Even some people who are pro-choice would agree with me.

 If science gets this far and technology gets this advanced, will we, as humans, know what to do with it? In her book, Frankenstein, Mary Shelley brings up this kind of point. Victor Frankenstein, a man with a great level of intelligence and scientific knowledge, set out to create life, and through doing so, he eventually destroyed much of what he held dear. Despite whatever intentions he may have had, he still took science too far and he paid a high price for his actions. We can’t afford to take science to this extreme.

As a young scientist intrested in chemical toxicology and infectious diseases (among other things),  I believe strongly that scientists should be well-aware of their moral choices that they make. We should not, in the words of Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy, “play God” in our scientific endeavours. If I am to return to my original point, who are we to decide who lives and who does not based on theories of eugenics alone?

-Aidoann

Star Trek quote is from TOS: Patterns of Force

No Responses »