hello to you I do hope you're well welcome to this a level religious studies video I'm Ben Wardle and today we are talking about te logical arguments for the existence of God which is on the OCR philosophy of religion paper so we will be looking at St Thomas aquinas's theological argument his fifth way for proving the existence of God we'll be looking at William paly's watch maker analogy and we'll also be considering tenants more contemp anthropic principle we will of course for our ao2 also be looking at criticisms of teleological arguments including those put forward by David Hume and also Richard Dawkins so plenty to talk about today let's get started shall we with a quick look at the OCR specification which sets out everything we need to know for the exam now the telogical argument is one of the two arguments based on observation that we need to know the other one being the cosmological argument the first cause argument of course now these arguments based on observation are therefore a posteriori and they are empirically based so they are based on observation and it's all about making inferences based on what you have observed in the world around you so remember we need to know for the exam the difference between an aposteriori argument which is based on empirical evidence and then an a prior ex um argument excuse me which is based on logic and reasoning alone and of course the example we look at for the course is Anselm's ontological arguments as we do look at the telogical argument today we will be asking this key question of whether a posteriori or a priori arguments are more persuasive so which are more successful so in terms of the te logical argument the spec tells us we need to know details of the this argument including reference to aquinas's fifth way so we'll be looking at his early example of a telogical argument including his famous arrow and Archer analogy and then we also need to know paly so we'll be talking about his book natural Theology and of course his very famous watch maker argument now we also need to know as you can see here the challenges to arguments from observation so this is where we'll be bringing in our criticisms and we'll be asking in whether the te logical argument does actually prove the existence of God and in particular whether it proves the existence of the Christian Omni benevolent monotheistic God so as you can see there we need to know details of David hume's criticisms of these Arguments for the existence of God from natural religion and we also need to look at the challenge of evolution so that is where we will be looking at Richard Dawkins he wrote a very famous critique called the blind watch maker and we'll be asking whether instead of the will being designed for us we actually adapted to it we evolved to it and so the appearance of design is actually an illusion and so we are here by chance rather than intelligent design so lots to talk about in terms of your key ao1 knowledge and then your ao2 evaluation points and we will cover everything in this video today now one thing that's really helpful about the o specifications is that they give us a list of discussion points for each topic and these are really helpful when you're revising because they help you to plan for what kind of questions will come up in the exam so they give us a really good indication of what the exam will be asking us so for arguments based on observation we have been given fre discussion points and we will be talking about all of them in this video today the first one is whether a posteriori or a priori is is the more persuasive style of argument so this is where we'll be comparing the telogical and cosmological arguments with the ontological argument and we'll be starting to think which is the better style of argument which is more convincing which is more successful which is more persuasive and why I think one of the headline points we'd make is that a posteriori is based on evidence and observation whereas a priori is prior to any observation it is based on reasoning alone and so whereas the aposteriori arguments make inferences and lead to probability with the a priori it is deductive and it leads to certainty because if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true as well the second bullet point asks us whether or not telogical arguments can be defended against the challenge of chance so this is where we'll be talking a lot about the challenge of evolution and this idea that the world was not designed for us we actually adapted to it and so could the universe just be here by chance we'll be looking at the epicurian hypothesis as well which says the world is here and it is the way that it is completely by chance it could just be down to chance that those laws of nature are in place that we are the perfect distance from the Sun Etc so we will be asking and this is I think the key question actually with the te ogical argument whether we are here by chance or intelligent design The Third bullet point doesn't actually apply for today's video it says whether cosmological arguments simply jump to the conclusion of a Transcendent Creator without sufficient explanation although I have to say I think that is a great discussion point to have about the teleological argument as well in terms of even if you accept that there is evidence of design in the universe how do we then end up saying it proves the Christian Omni benevolent um om nipotent om nian Etc God you know so okay you might say there is evidence of design but then how do you then jump to the conclusion it is the Christian monotheistic all loving God so there is a really interesting discussion to be had there in terms of what kind of God does the theological argument prove for example David hum's criticisms are why not many gods he uses his Builder analogy for that point he also says surely because of the flaws in the design and the problems we see in the natural world that actually this argument only proves a traye god who's made a few mistakes as part of their plan or could it even be our malevolent sedom masochistic God who has taken pleasure in designing tsunamis earthquakes and natural disasters so as I say lots of questions about whether the designer that this argument proves is actually the Christian uh mon theistic Omni benevolent God is that then a matter of faith that you believe it is the Christian God based on your upbringing based on the language game the form of life within which you operate and then finally the fourth question is whether or not there are logical fallacies in these arguments that cannot be overcome so a logical fallacy is a flaw in the logic of the argument so it is a structural problem with the argument and again we'll be asking do theological arguments work what flaws can we find what problems can we see in terms of the structure of telogical arguments so plenty to talk about today let's get started by introducing our four key Scholars now we will be talking about more Scholars than just these four but I think they are our four main men when it comes to talking about and writing about the telogical argument so the first one is William paly he was an English Anglican clergyman and philosopher so really important to know that he was a committed Christian he was a clergyman so he was a preacher in the church and of course that then tells us why he does believe that his design argument proves the existence of the Christian God so it is important when we are talking about Scholars and we're studying their ideas that we do take into account those broader contextual factors such as the fact he was an Anglican priest so that is very de sightful in terms of why py believes this argument does prove the Christian God because of course he has Faith he believes that the Christian God is eternal Transcendent omnipotent and so would be capable of Designing the universe he is best known for his natural theology exposition of the theological argument so he actually wrote a book called natural Theology and that is actually very important make sure you refer to that in your essay because natural theology is the idea that you can know God and you can discover God through nature through observation of the natural world that nature and the natural world around us reveals the existence of God and that we can gain knowledge about God through observing the natural world and of course that is what the design argument is all about it's about observing the complexity and regularity in nature which leads to that conclusion that the world must have been designed so whenever you're writing about William paly always make sure you ref his text natural theology because that really goes to the core of what theological arguments are doing it is about observation of Nature and then making inferences based on that our next key scholar then is f tenant and he was a British Theologian a philosopher of religion and he was also an author so a busy man now we'll be talking about him for giving us one of the most contemporary versions of the telogical argument he came up with the an ropic principle and this is the idea that the universe is designed so perfectly for intelligent life to develop that that can't have happened by chance so he said that there are over 30 boundary conditions that have been fine-tuned for human life to develop and flourish on this planet things like our distance from the Sun the steady rate of gravity all of these things that are so perfect for human life that have all aligned together at the same time and he says that fine tuning is not by chance there has to be a designer behind it so he sees how perfect this world is for human life to have developed and flourished and he says that it's been fine-tuned this way by a designer it can't be a coincidence it can't be down to chance that those boundary conditions have all aligned so perfectly for us to be able to develop and flourish our third key thinker is David Hume he was a Scottish philosop phos opher historian Economist and essayist so again another busy man who is known for his philosophical empiricism and his skepticism and Skeptics are all about questioning things and he asks a lot of questions about telogical arguments he is well known as of put there for his criticisms and we will be studying them today so for example he says well why not many gods if it takes many men to make a ship why does it not take many God Gods to make a world he also as to say asks whether this world is actually the work of a trainee or Junior God because actually when you look at nature and You observe the world around you you don't see a perfect design there are flaws in the design so that would suggest that the designer has made a few mistakes that they've made a few errors along the way whilst they were creating the world so we'll be talking about his criticisms really important for our ao2 a little bit later on and then the fourth key scholar I want to mention is John Stewart Mill now we've already met John Stewart Mill I mean we've already met David Hume of course he's another prolific philosopher we look at but we've already met John Stewart Mill in ethics when we've studied his utilitarianism remember he developed bentham's utilitarianism to create his rule version of the ethical Theory so he was an English philosopher and politician he wrote a very famous book one of my all-time favorite philosophical books called on Liberty and he asserted in that that his own body and mind the individual is Sovereign so you know I think it's such a brilliant book uh and I really do recommend it to you but in terms of why we're talking about him today he wrote a very famous essay called on nature and remember this then links back to William paly and this practice of natural Theology and John Stewart Mill said if you look at nature nature is very cruel he literally wrote this is a great two-word quote to memorize nature kills he said all the crimes for which men would would be executed are nature's everyday occurrences and so actually we can use John Stewart Mill to say if you do empirically observe the world around you you are not going to see evidence of an omni benevolent designer you're actually going to see a lot of Cruelty in nature and so that would support hume's point that this world is not the work of the Christian God because actually there are many problems there are many flaws so is that Designer Limited in some way and then of course they wouldn't be the Christian God or are they actually malevolent and a bit sedom masochistic in terms of they designed into the world tsunamis earthquakes Etc so of course again they wouldn't be that Christian God so I think he's a great philosopher to talk about in the exam because remember the te logical argument is about natural theology both aquinus and py are based in their arguments on what they're observing in the natural world around them in terms of the complexity the regularity and then what they see as evidence of design so talking of design I hope you can see how today's video is Flowing almost like of blandit um the key question I want to ask you is does the world do you think contain evidence of design and of course as we mentioned before the key concept with this is empiricism which is about gaining knowledge via the senses which of course is very popular today you know a real strength of these arguments is that they are based on empiricism which is very popular today the modern scientific method is built upon empiricism isn't it and we call that epistemic imperialism you know in the modern world empiricism is prioritized as our source of knowledge and truth and so we can say the fact that this argument is grounded in empiricism is a strength of it although of course there are been many criticisms in terms of whether the world does actually contain evidence of an omni benevolent designer but py certainly thought so he gave the example of the human eye for example that is so welld designed it's so complex and it's so welld designed as I say for fulfilling the purpose of providing us with sight and he says that can't have happened by chance that can't have happened by accident it has to have been designed that way in order to fulfill that very important purpose so he uses empiricism so he uses his sight to see that the eye is an example of design that it has to have been designed because it is so complex in order to fulfill its purpose you can also look at other features of the natural world so I've got a chameleon there for example the fact they're able to change color to blend in with their environment again is that just by chance is that just by look or surely he would be arguing that shows us evidence of design he also talks about fish in the sea and also birds with their wings so the fish and their ability to breathe underwater the birds and their wings give giving them the ability to fly he said again that can't have happened by chance that has to be the result of intelligent design now the really interesting criticism that we would get from Richard Dawkins and the theory of evolution is that this is the result of uh natural selection that this is about survival of the fittest which is a blind process that gives us an alternative explanation to design so again rather than things being designed they're actually the way they are as a result of evil ution and natural selection so just to always be bringing in our ao2 questions and criticisms as we do Journey Through today's video I think one of our best examples because this is something else that aquinus picks up on is the the regularities in nature this is something as a say that Thomas airist also saw as evidence of design so the four seasons of the year for example the fact that they routinely take place you have spring summer Autumn then winter so you've got that regularity you've got that order there seems to be a law that's being followed in nature in terms of the cyclical nature of those Seasons the 24-hour day the 365 day year that we could say how is there that regularity without design surely that can't happen by chance surely it has to have been designed that way although very interestingly the epicurian hypothesis is going to say that could have happened by chance it's extraordinary but it's still possible that that just happened by chance a bit like winning the lottery for example although the odds are so small and it's incredible if you do win the 100 million pound it is still by chance so could we argue that things are in this system of order regularity and routine by chance or as py would argue and indeed aquinus will argue is that evidence of design and then just a couple of pictures of the beauty of the natural world we've got the sky there and we've got a beautiful sunrise so again using empiricism to look at the world around you is that evidence of design for example the Psalms in the Bible which of course is the infallible word of God for Christians says that the skies proclaim the work of his hands so we've even got a te ogical argument there in the Bible and this idea that we can see evidence of a designer in the world around us and of course for Christians that is God I mean know looking at those pictures they do look stunning they do look amazing don't they and you think well that looks like the work of an artist so surely it is a designer who has designed it this way but of course you could contest that you could give a rebuttal by saying I've been very selective in the images I've chosen here I've chosen a lovely picture of the sea there I've not chosen a picture of a tsunami so an argument could be well whilst there is evidence of design there is also then evidence for example natural disasters that the designer is not Omni benevolent so even if there is a designer behind it all is that Designer the Christian monotheistic Omni benevolent God so lots to talk about today I hope that's got us thinking about this key question that we will be focusing on today of whether the world contains evidence of design and of course that then links us back to empiricism which is the foundation for this argument and for any a posterior argument so I want to start by talking about St Thomas aquinus because he is such an influential philosopher we talk about him a lot on the course for example natural moral law when we're talking about ethics and he is really important for understanding theological arguments his theological argument was his fifth way so he developed five ways for proving the existence of God through observation the first three we look at for the first cause argument the cosm ological argument motion causation and contingency and he also then had Perfection and design and his te ogical argument is that fifth way it is his argument from design now always remember whenever you're talking about aquinus that he was very very influenced very highly influenced by Aristotle so in the same way that when we talk about him on natural moral law we would be referring to the influence of Aristotle when we're talking about his theological argument we will again be referring to the influence of Aristotle and I think the title theological argument in itself tells us that because remember TS is a word we've encountered before when we are studying natural moral law Telos you will remember is from Aristotle and it means purpose so of course the te logical argument is to do with something's purpose or its goal slash Endo so what did aquinus say in terms of his fifth way for proving the existence of God God through observation his telogical argument well aquinus looked at the world around him so remember these arguments are based on empiricism they're based on observation of Nature and he saw how all things were moving towards their tellos they were fulfilling their tell us and he thought well how is that actually happening because so many of these things are natural things that are not rational that cannot think for themselves so for example let me give you an example he used an acorn so an acorn becomes doesn't it an acorn tree and he thought how does it do that how does it move from that state of potentiality to actuality because it doesn't have a brain it's not intelligent it can't think for itself so unlike human beings who can make that conscious decision to move towards udonia to use reason to do the right thing he saw natural things such as the acorn that becomes the acorn tree and he thought how do they do that how do they move to fulfill their teof and he came to the conclusion that there must be something or someone that actually moves them that is actually directing them to their end so that Acorn can go from being an acorn to then becoming the acorn tree and he said that that is God and he used the example of an arrow and an Archer to illustrate this so you know an arrow when you fire it from your bow towards the Target that Arrow doesn't think for itself does it that Arrow doesn't think do you know what today I'm going to fly across towards that Target the arrow is we could say the natural thing that can't think for itself that can't act on its own it has to be directed by the Archer and the Archer is the intelligent expert who knows what they're doing they've had practice they've got expertise and so they take the arrow they put it in the bow and they fire it towards the Target and for Aristotle the Archer is God so that is God directing all the natural things in the world towards their ends because they can't do it on their own they're not rational they're not intelligent they're just natural things and so they need to be directed to their ends there needs to be an Archer who fires the arrow or to use the earlier example there needs to be a God who directs the acor to becoming an acorn tree and a lot of this as I say was based on his observation of the laws of nature of the way things worked the regularities he could see in nature and he came to that conclusion how does this happen what is directing all of these things towards their teos hence the term te ogical argument and for aquinus that has to be God because of God's nature because of God's characteristics and attributes it has to be God that he's directing all things towards their ends towards their teos so as I've put here let's just get this into bullet points aquinus developed his ideas about Telos based on the writings of Aristotle so as I say he was heavily influenced by Aristotle he is very well known for bringing Aristotle's Greek philosophy into a synthesis with Christian theology that he was very keen on bringing together Aristotle with the Bible and Aristotle remember believed that everything has a tell us including human beings artos is udonia and the universe itself the prime mover so aquinus thought we understand how human beings achieve emonia because they have been given reason they have their god-given ability to reason and so they can use that to ascertain what they should be doing and how they can move towards udonia but he thought for those natural bodies those natural things they can't think the acorn doesn't think okay today I'm going to become a tree so he wondered he thought how do those natural things move from that state of potentiality to actuality and in the same way that the arrow directs no the Archer directs the arrow excuse me God directs natural things towards their end so God must exist so that things can move towards their tellos which would explain the regularities in nature it would explain how things then do fulfill their teof how there is change how there is growth how does that happen without God so he said and this is that key quote I've put in yellow there just to emphasize how important it is he said therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end and he said as you can see there this being we call God so for uh aquinus he said we cannot achieve our purpose or anything can't achieve its purpose without something to make it happen or guide us and this is God because God is eternal God is transcendent God is the Creator and controller of everything so really interesting to reflect on aquinus and the fact that this is known as the te logical argument because it explains how natural things are able to fulfill their teos because they are being directed to their Ends by God so just to unpack the arrow and Archer analogy a bit more because we do see quite a few analogies today for example we're going to look at the watchmaker analogy in a moment and analogies are a powerful way of making an argument there are of course criticisms of analogy which we look at when we study religious language but an analogy is a comparison between two things to help us understand the less familiar thing and aquinus is example is the arrow and the Archer so in the same way that the Archer guides the arrow to where it is meant to go God guides natural bodies to where they are meant to go so for example are Acorn becoming the acorn tree and we see that through the laws of nature and the regularities of nature so the natural body needs to get to in other words it needs to fulfill its purpose just like The Arrow needs to get to its Target and in the same way that the arrow needs an Archer because the arrow can't decide I'm going to get up fly through the air and hit the target today it needs to be put into the bow and fired by the archer in the same way that the arrow needs an Archer the natural body needs something to direct it and this is for ainus God so whil I just quickly have some green te I want you to take a minute please to think about this argument so far do you think this works when we look at the natural world when we think of how things do fulfill their tellos do we think that this is explained by the existence of God that God is the Archer who is directing natural things and natural bodies to their ends so that they can fulfill their ts would they be able to fulfill their ts without God so that is the first question I want you to be thinking about I want you to think does this analogy work can we compare God to the Archer and I want you to think what criticisms have we already identified with theological arguments is this argument going to convince everybody for example that there must be a God so now that we've started thinking about that let's have a look at paley's BIR of the argument and again we're using an analogy only this time we're not talking about an Archer and an arrow we're talking about a watch and a watch maker now again thinking of context it's really important to remember that when py was writing watches with a brand new invention everybody was really excited you know this was the brand new thing that had just been created they were these amazing new modern machines so in the same way that today we'd all get excited about a new iPhone for example or an eyewatch back then a watch was the brand new Gadget people couldn't believe how amazing it was its complexity its regularity and the way that it fulfilled its purpose of telling us the time so it's really important when we're thinking about why does py use a watch to remember just how impressed people were with the invention of the watch back in the uh 1700s 1800s he also uses a lot or is influenced a lot I should say by the latest scientific discoveries of his day so again you know Newton's laws for example had been discovered at the time so py was again very influenced by the scientific discoveries and he thought well where have these laws come from if we're discovering laws like the law of gravity surely that shows us there is a designer behind this universe because those laws can't have just happened by chance they have to have come from somewhere so here is going to be using the watch and he's going to be saying that the conclusions we reach about a watch that it must have a designer because of its complexity and regularity can be applied to the world as a whole because if we're going to say well a watch must have a designer because it is complex and it has regularity so it can fulfill a purpose then the world as a whole which is infinitely more complex and has so much more regularity and it's so much more well-designed it must have a maker as well that he will be moving from a watch to the world and that is of course why it's called an analogy because he's making a comparison between something that was really exciting at the time something brand new at the time which was a watch to the world as a whole now just to spoiler for you David Hume will criticize this because he says that the world is not mechanistic like a watch he says the world is more like a vegetable that is an organic natural thing rather than a watch which is a mechanistic man-made thing but we're going to hear pale out before we start criticizing him and we're going to start by looking at three key facts you need to know about his argument the first one is that the argument is based on observation and I looked we looked before didn't we at some of the observations the I for example the fish the birds so his argument is grounded in it's rooted in empiricism and that reflects of course the fact it is a posteriori which means post experience so the argument is made the conclusions are reached after experience you have observed things you have seen things and then you're making conclusions about them you're making inferences really important to know that with a posterior right arguments you cannot arrive at certainty they lead to they reach probability so just again another comparison thinking back to that OCR discussion point from the spec and then thirdly it is inductive and it makes in inferences and of course the contrast there is with your a priori argument the ontological argument which is deductive and leads to certainty if you accept the premises if you accept anel's definition of God for example then the argument will logically lead to certainty so with these aposteriori arguments and I say these because remember it is theological and cosmological they are based on observation they are reached post experience because they are based on what you've seen what you've exper expence with your eyes and your senses and then they are inductive and make inferences so let's talk about those observations actually from which he is making those inferences and he is reaching those conclusions whenever you're writing about py there are three observations that you need to make sure you mention they are complexity regularity and then purpose which kind of brings the two of them together so let's find out more complexity is our first observation because P observes the complexity of the natural world including the things within it he looks at the complexity of biological organisms and organs such as the human eye as we said he also looks at the complexity of the laws of nature by which everything is governed as a say he was influenced by the latest scientific discoveries of the day Newton's law of gravity for example and he thought these laws have to have come from somewhere this complexity cannot be by chance his second observation is regularity he observes the regularity of the orbit of comets moons and planets and the regularity of the seasons of the year and of course he's going to compare the regularity of the watch in the way that it tells the time um on that Reg reg I can't speak do excuse me on that regular cycle he is then going to compare that with the regular cycle of the world and then finally purpose he observes the machines that we make such as a watch remember that brand new exciting machine of the day and he infers he concludes that they are built for a purpose their complexity and regularity implies they have a purpose so as to say purpose kind of ties together complexity and regularity because they lead to the conclusion there must be a purpose behind it there is a reason that it is this way so it can fulfill a function for example the complexity and regularity of the watch is because of its purpose which is to tell the time our observation of the complexity and regularity of the world therefore implies the world also has a purpose and remember telogical Telos means purpose so the observation of complexity and regularity leads to the conclusion there is purpose and that the purpose has been given by God that God has designed the world the Universe I should say for a purpose so let's just talk about this a little bit more the first thing to know again is that wider context and the world in which haly was philosophizing and writing because he was influenced by the scientific discoveries of his day such as the realization that gravity is a controlling force and the planets rotate around the sun that should say not the Sun not his child who is the center of the universe although of course it was a patriarchal society at the time however that is a typo I do apologize don't get your SPG as badly wrong as I have um so son F that should say I remember it was Isaac Newton who had shown a few key rules seem to govern the universe successfully a bit like a machine so this is why he is then comparing the world to a machine and saying that it is mechanistic in the same way a watch is because there are these rules that seem to govern it the regularities for example the cyclical nature of the seasons so in the same way that aquinus saw Law and Order in the universe and remember he did then come up with natural moral law but in the same way that aquinus saw Law and Order and routine and regular ity in the universe so did P and that really is the key Foundation the key observation for their te ogical arguments that things can't be like this by chance that if there is a rule there is a law that is governing things that has to have come from somewhere it has to have been created by an intelligent higher power now of course the criticism of this is that that could have happened by chance we'll be looking at the epicurian hypothesis and we'll also be looking at um Richard Dawkins and the challenge From Evolution but yes in terms of why he's comparing the world to a watch and why he thinks that there has to be a designer is that he is seeing these laws the regularity and he's saying that can't have happened by chance there has to be a designer behind it so just to recap those three observations complexity the complexity of the natural world implies there is a designer who is behind it the complexity of the human eye with all the parts working together so we can see is our great really you know really really practical example Le we can apply in the exam regularity then the second one he observed that complex objects work with regularity the seasons of the air happen with order the planets rotate with order gravity works with order the order seems to be the result of the work of a designer who has put this regularity and order into place deliberately so again it is that challenge of chance does this happen by chance Paley would say no there has to be a designer behind it who has done this deliberately and then purpose the way things work themes have been put together deliberately and with purpose so remember the complexity and regularity lead to the conclusion there is a purpose there is a tell off the eyes seem to py to have been constructed deliberately with the purpose to see the wings of a bird as we mentioned before operate with such intricacy and with the purpose to Aid flight that there seems to be a designer behind them and so here's the really important conclusion he reaches remember you have your observations with an posterior argument and then you make your inferences you reach your conclusion for py all of this pointed to a designer who is God on both small and large scales there is evidence of design God's creative action is continuous so we've got here from aquinus and py two quite similar actually observation-based arguments and another similarity between them is that they then both use um analogies to double down on their arguments so in the same way that aquinus used the arrow in the Archer py uses a watch and a watch maker so let's have a read of natural theology shall we remember very important title for the methodology of theological arguments in terms of looking at nature and reaching conclusions from it he gives us in natural theology his very famous watchmaker argument his watchmaker analogy his comparison between a watch and a watch maker and the world and a world maker so let's have a read shall we he said in crossing a heath which is a bit of land suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there I might possibly answer that for anything I new to the country it had Lain there forever nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer so you've got a stone it doesn't move does it it doesn't do anything no being rude to Stone lovers out there but the stone doesn't move it doesn't do anything at all it is just there so it is just there as a simple natural object it's there in the ground or on the ground wherever it is and it's not doing anything the p is quite happy to say it has always been there it needs no further explanation it is just as he put there something that has lay there forever and that would not be an absurd answer to give but he says imagine you keep walking and you have then found a watch upon the ground remember back then his early audience his 18th century audience his um contemporaries of the time if they' found a watch that's like you in the park finding a brand new iPhone just lying there you wouldn't think that iPhone's just been lying there forever would you you'd think this has to have come from somewhere this has to have been designed this has to have been made so imagine you found a watch upon the ground and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place he says I should hardly think of the answer I'd given before that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there there must have existed and this is your important bit at some time and at some place or other an artificer or artifices which means a maker or makers who formed the watch for a purpose which we find it actually to answer and I love this phrase actually this is a phrase I would write down on a Post-It note and I would quote in the exam who comprehended its construction and designed its use so when you see a watch you don't think it's just there by chance and this of course is that argument from chance that we're looking at today it's not just there by chance you can tell that because of its complexity and regularity it has a purpose and it does have a purpose doesn't it which is to tell the time so it's able to fulfill its purpose its tell us so well because it has been so welld designed and so you look at that and you think somebody you look at the watch sorry and you think somebody has designed this they have planned it they've designed it and then they've actually made it and so he is saying that unlike the stone which is not doing anything and it is just there the watch has to have a designer it has to have been made by somebody who has comprehended its construction so they're an intelligent being who has planned it out and then designed its use they have designed it with a purpose in mind you know with a reason to be created to be designed now again again let's pause here and think does this work David H for example is going to say you can't compare the watch to a world or you know they're not an adequate comparison they don't work the analogy basically doesn't work because they don't work in comparison with one another uh you could build on that with Bertrand Russell who says the existence of the universe is a brute fact he says I should say the world is just there and that's all so actually is the world we could say not more like the stone because of the fact that it is organic it just exists and we've just got to accept that as a brute fact but of course I think your counterargument there would be but the world isn't just a stone is it because the world rotates restart the world has these rules these laws that seem to govern it and so the argument would be that the watch is an adequate comparison with the world because of the complexity and the regularity because of those laws and because of then the apparent per purpose there seems to be although again to give you another rebuttal to that point you could bring in existentialism existentialists believe that existence precedes essence they believe the world has no purpose our lives have no purpose we are all just here by happy accident or chance and then we have to invent a purpose to give our lives meaning so again you know does this argument work for everybody or does it work for people who are if we use uh vickens sinian terms operating Within theistic form of life um so lots of links we can make to other topics here but just for now before we get too carried away let's just think does this analogy work do you like this analogy do you think that he is right to say that if you found a watch these are the judgments you'd make and then is he right to apply that to the world as a whole so can we move from finding a watch on a heath to making conclusions making inferences about the world as a whole so again does this analogy work let's talk about this a little bit more then I want to break it down into some bullet points for you he says Disney let's put this into more contemporary language now if I were to come across a rock or a stone I could explain its Origins by natural causes and it's not doing much it's just there I'm quite happy to accept it's always been there if I were to come across a watch however there wouldn't be a natural explanation that is because the watch is made up of cogs and springs and this design couldn't have come about by chance there's that key word again is it chance or is it intelligent design there must have been a watch maker who designed it with the purpose the tell off remember it's the te ogical argument make sure you get the word in there of telling the time so it's so well designed to fulfill its purpose that can't have happened by chance now this is then applied to the world isn't it because that is what an analogy does we use our understanding of one thing to make a comment make a point make an argument about another so then moves his Focus From The Watch to the world and he says well look at the world if the watch must have a watch maker then the world must definitely have a world maker because the world is even more complex than a watch in how it is put together and remember we're looking at those uh natural laws those rules that seem to govern the universe that give it the regularity we're also looking at the complexity and the intricacies of the design and he's saying so there must be a world maker because if a watch couldn't happen by chance a watch needs a watch maker then look at the world look at the universe the universe the world must then have a world maker and so he says there must be a Creator behind it there must be an intelligent designer who has created it and designed it and that of course for him is God that is where we'll be asking that key question of is he right to say that the designer must be the Christian God is that the correct conclusion to reach is that a leap in logic is he making you know a unjustified leap there we'll talk about that in a moment but just for now that is P's argument that in the same way that the watch must have a watch maker based on those observations of complexity regularity and purpose he says the world must have a world maker now here are a couple of key points that we just need to know about this argument whether or not we have seen a watch before and remember some of his readers might not have actually seen a watch before it you know it was a brand new invention of the time we could if we saw one for the first time see it is different from the rock so even if you don't you know have expert knowledge on watches if you just came across one and found one on a heath you would see that it is clearly different to the Rock and that applies even if the watch is broken because there is still enough design to suggest a watch maker now that is really interesting because we can use that to say that even though there are flaws in the design of the universe the argument still works that there is still enough design for example the eye to suggest a watch maker but of course Christians have a big big problem there because if they believe that God is perfect then surely the design should be perfect so again what kind of designer does this argument actually lead to us believing in and then a final point just to note even if we didn't fully understand the watch we would still identify design so what is this leading to where are we going with this here is the key point that you need to know for the exam pale's argument uses the understanding of the about machines to conclude that by analogy by this analogy the world must be a machine with a designer and Creator and remember with saying machine because he was see seeing can't speak excuse me again uh he was seeing the rules the laws that governed the universe and so he does come to this quite mechanistic understanding of the universe and again I think aquinus did something quite similar when he was seeing the laws that were governing in the universe and he was seeing things moving towards their tellos so py has used regularity he has used order intricacy another word for complexity he has used purpose tellos and design to make his points but of course the question we have to ask now is is he correct is he right with his observations of complexity regularity leading to purpose and then with his watch maker analogy is he right that when you look at that watch and conclude it must have a watch maker we can then apply that to the world and if we look at the world remember it's an empirical argument we can then conclude that the world must have a world maker and of course the key question I want you to keep in mind is even if he can prove that there is a designer and obviously the word prove is tenuous there because this argument can only make inferences and lead to probability not certainty because it's a posterior all right but my question is even if he can argue that there probably is a designer is that Designer the Christian God is that Designer Omni benevolent that is the question and please have a minute to think about that so I've asked you a few questions there really does the analogy work is py right that if we observe the world and we look at the evidence of design we reach the conclusion of the designer or are there alternative explanations that are actually more convincing and more robust for example the theory of evolution which was developed just after paleo died actually which was developed of course by Charles Darwin and said that we evolve to the world rather than having it designed for us so just take a minute before we look at the ao2 strengths and weaknesses to think about your thoughts just collect your thoughts gather your thoughts on this watchmaker analogy and telogical arguments so let's have a look at the strength shall we let's see what's good about it what people have said they like about it how the argument could be defended from the criticisms we'll look at in a moment the first point I would make is that it is an empirically based argument this is something we've referred to a lot today isn't it the aposteriori nature of it but that is an important strength because it is using observable examples of complexity and regularity and you might be thinking well why does that matter and the reason is we live in an empirical age we are living in what olone called an age of epistemic Imperialism we see in the scientific method for example a complete emphasis on empiricism so the fact that the argument does use observation we could say gives it credibility for example if you were comparing it with the ontological argument you could say that people today value empirical evidence one of the problems for example with the ontological argument and the perfect Island criticism from gilo is that no matter how you define that island or whether you follow the logic of anel's argument that Island doesn't then exist in real reality so people are not often convinced by Logic alone certainly if you're trying to prove the existence of God people want evidence so the fact that py can point to evidence the I for example we could say is a strength of the argument that it is grounded upon empiricism but of course there are many counterarguments you know we we know that don't we we know for example that that evidence is quite cherry-picked that there's actually a lot of evidence the designer is not Omni benevolent for example we of course then have Richard Dawkins criticism that although you might see evidence of design the design is an illusion there is not actually a designer so we can't then leap to the conclusion that because there is evidence of design there is then a designer so there are lots of counterarguments you can then use in the exam if you were to give this as a strength and always be thinking of that what rebuttal can I give what counterargument will I include to show The Examiner I am a great philosophy student another key strength we can use is Richard swinburn a contemporary philosopher he said the argument is the best explanation for the appearance of design in nature so this is an argument of Simplicity really that design equals designer and I've linked in there aam's Razer which is that key philosophical concept that you should shave off unnecessary complications to an argument you should stick to the simplest explanation and you could make an argument that this provides the simplest explanation for why there is evidence of design in the world because there is a designer now of course again there are so many counterarguments that I hope you are shouting at the screen right now things like that well if you know there is a designer who designed the designer so actually this argument could become absurd because if the designer has been able to create this design then who designed them because they must have been even more complex and extra ordinary so you know we we actually have a lot of counterarguments again we can say what kind of designer does this universe reveal okay fair enough design equals designer but if I look at earthquakes and tsunamis that Designer is malevolent that Designer is sedom masochistic and seems to take pleasure in people being subjected to extreme suffering so the problem of evil and suffering is a great synoptic link will be making but yes you could use Richard swinburn maybe have a little look on Google more of what he said about this as a more contemporary supporter in terms of uh for religious people this argument can be seen as successful because it is consistent with scripture and of course for a theist for a Christian operating within that vinan form of Life as a Christian this is an argument that would um provide a philosophical support for their scriptural beliefs so for example Psalm 19 says the Heavens declare the glory of God the skies proclaim the work of his hands so we could see that as quite an early version of the theological argument couldn't we so as I've put the design argument would be accepted by many theists as providing philosophical support for scriptural teachings so you could say that if you look at the world um you look at the sky a beautiful sunset you know if we think about numinous experiences you are led to the conclusion that there is a designer and that is consistent with scripture that says that natural theology does work we can know God through nature and of course we do look at that when we look at Revelation don't we for developments in Christian thought and we do look at uh General Revelation and the idea that God can be known through nature through the natural world now interestingly again we've got the problem of when you see a nature suffering we could say that actually contradicts scripture because scripture says God is love if God is love why can I see a tsunami why can I see such pain and suffering in nature but remember Christians um see the Bible as the infallible and inherent word of God so the fact this argument is consistent with Psalm 19 we could say is something they like and then probably my favorite strand here is fr tenants anthropic principle so he was as we saw when we looked at his biography a really important philosopher and theologian he observed that there are 30 plus what he called boundary conditions that have to be fine-tuned for an ordered universe containing intelligent life to develop they include the distance from the Sun if we were any closer we'd burn and if we were any further we'd freeze the force of gravity so that we don't float off and that we're not stuck to the ground and the expansion rate of the Big Bang so we could say the odds against all of those boundary conditions being at exactly the right setting at exactly the right time are colossal and so this is a fine-tuning argument and this is something Richard swinburn talks about as well actually so it must have been The Universe must have been fine-tuned this way so that would again support the idea of a designer who has fine-tuned these boundary conditions so that they are perfectly aligned and so that the universe is just right if you like think about goldilock from the Bree Beth it is just right for human life to develop and flourish now again counterarguments here we could say we evolve to the universe or to the world at least rather than having it designed for us and so what appears to be fine-tuning is actually the result of natural selection um but I do like this as a strength because it is a contemporary argument I think it's got a bit more you know weight to it a bit more gravitas a bit more substance to it um and again it's something we can empirically observe but again we could say that is still by chance winning the lottery again I will use that example you might say the chance of that is minuscule you know but it can still happen by chance so you know again the appearance of design is that that sufficient to conclude that there is a designer and this is of course where a posterior right arguments which are based on probability can be criticized but what I want you to do now please is I want you to think a which of those is the best strength so which of those would you be prioritizing in your essay as the best defense of the design argument and then B can you think of any other strengths of the argument um for example you could make a point that the analogy works if you like the analogy you could say that that is success uccessful you could say that modern science is compatible I'm thinking of The Big Bang Theory for example could you say that God cused the Big Bang the Big Bang was developed by a um Catholic priest George the martra The Big Bang Theory is supported by Pope Francis the current pope so again you know what strengths can you think of but yes please think which of those is the strongest strength which is the best support for this argument that you would use in the ex ex what I then want you to do please is think about criticisms what criticisms are we going to give of this argument so what problems can we find in it what weaknesses are there how is David Hume going to tear this argument apart let's find out shall we the first one is the epicurian hypothesis this is the idea that things could have happened this way by chance and remember that is the key discussion point on the OCR spec so the universe is here with order and stability or if we're to use the language of the arguments with regularity by random chance so we could say that although it appears things were designed this way it could really be the result of random chance just because it is highly unlikely that doesn't mean it's impossible and this is the epicurian hypothesis this was referred to by David Hume and it's the idea that things could be the way they are by complete autter chance and I'll say that again you know just because it's highly unlikely and extraordinary doesn't mean mean it's impossible so we could say there may be the appearance of design but it could really be the result of chance and actually that is going to be supported by Richard Dawkins and the blind watch maker the book that he wrote and his argument based on evolution in terms of hume's criticisms then David Hume is our main man when we are criticizing this argument and also when we're criticizing the cosmological argument in terms of his uh criticisms please remember he was not specifically criticizing paly so don't say you know he went and found paly in a pub and told him his ideas were rubbish he was not directly U refuting him he was talking about te logical arguments and remember um te logical arguments are not unique to paly but in terms of analogy he would say that the analogy a watch maker analogy does not work because you cannot compare the world to a watch a watch is a machine where whereas a world is organic so he said the world plainly resembles more of an animal or vegetable than it does a watch now whenever I hear that I actually imagine like a giant carrot floating in the sky but his point there is that the world is organic it could have grown itself rather than being designed in a factory so you cannot reduce the world to being mechanistic he thinks that that is a mistake to look at a watch and say that because that has been designed it is a machine the world is a machine just because the world has those laws and it has regularity that doesn't mean you can reduce it to a machine he says the world is more organic it is more like a vegetable than it is a watch you cannot compare a mechanistic watch to a world and so the analogy is flawed so make that point in your essay that analogies comparing the world to a machine is flawed you cannot do that the world cannot be compared to a machine because it is not another question I would ask is who do design the designer you could argue that this argument actually raises more questions than it provides answers so if we bring in aam's razor again actually it complicates things this is not a simple explanation at all it raises even more questions and I would build on that by using another one of hume's criticisms he said that the argument the theological argument does not prove the existence of the Christian God so there is nothing that we can say based on those observations that leads to the conclusion there is a monotheistic Omni benevolent Christian God so Hume uses the example of a ship so he uses his ship Builder analogy he said it takes many men to build a ship doesn't it so why not many gods to make a world so we can say okay one person can make a watch many people can make a ship what about a whole world then surely the scale factor is going to be increasing he would be arguing that surely if you look at a ship and how many people it takes to make make a ship then there needs to be more Gods many gods working together to make a world and of course that contradicts one of your key core Christian beliefs of monotheism what would the Christian response be well the Christian response would be of course that God's nature means that he is capable of creating the world on his own because he is eternal Transcendent perfect uh but of course your criticism of that would be that is a matter of Faith you believe that as a matter of Faith there is no empirical foundation for that belief so whilst if we bring in Vicken Stein that would work within a Christian theistic language game anybody outside that language game is just not going to say okay then yeah you're right because of the nature of God which there is no proof for whatsoever it must be God on his own so there's your rebuttal with a rebuttal to your rebuttal and a nice little synoptic link to language game you could also talk about the flaws in the design and we will talk about this more with John Stewart Mill in a moment but the point I would make for now is that Hume himself said the designer of this world is clearly a trainee or a junior God who has made mistakes so there's actually flaws in their design it is a faulty design they are not perfect they are not this omnipotent Omni benevolent perfect Eternal God because they've made mistakes so this is the work of a trainee or Junior God who's just been appointed to the role of world making and they need to go and do a topup course because they've made mistakes he says it could also be the work of a scile god who's forgetting how to do things and he's now again making mistakes because of the flaws in the design we can empirically observe really important it's a posterior I those flaws in the design he also goes on to say is it the work of a malevolent deity through an evil deity then again it would not be the only benevolent Christian God because of the natural disasters because of the cruelty and suffering in nature and that actually leads on very nicely to John Stewart Mill and the problem of evil so as I mentioned before John Stewart Mill can be used is is if I'm just repeating the same word now I'm going a bit mad guys I do apologize I think I need some green tea do excuse me there we go so he um says that the cruelty of nature means the designer is not Omni benevolent so as I mentioned he wrote a essay called on nature and he described the world I love this quote again get this one on a Post-It note he described this world as a designedly imperfect world he wrote that nearly all the things that men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another remember capital punishment was a thing at the time are nature's everyday performances so nature is very cruel nature is barbaric nature inflicts so much pain and suffering on innocent victims whether they are animals or human beings and so he said actually the empirical foundations of this argument are not strong at all because nature does not reveal the existence of an omni benevolent designer we can of course bring in the problem of evil there we could of course if we want a rebuttal bring in St Augustine there and say well the design was once perfect but as a result of the Fall humans brought all those problems in but there is still evidence of design despite the corruption despite the state of sinfulness the world is now in but I love that quote the designedly imperfect World building in really strongly I think on Hume there and of course really robustly challenging this idea of natural theology revealing an omni benevolent all loving all powerful monotheistic Christian Gods so yeah for me they are really great criticisms because even if you're going to say there is evidence of design what kind of designer is behind it based on that evidence based on those observations and then finally let's talk about Dawkins because we need to know the challenge of science or The Challenge from science for this argument so Richard Dawkins wrote a book called The Blind watch maker he's also wrote a book called The God Delusion which I think gives you a nice little preview as to his thoughts on theism and he spoke about the challenge From Evolution he said there is no watch maker the only watch maker is natural selection which is a blind watch maker so his argument is that design is an illusion we may see things and think that the world was designed for us but actually that is an illusion because instead we evolve to the world rather than having it designed for us so he said that you know if you look at the work of Charles Darwin which again came just after Pia died the illusion of design is the result of evolution we evolve to the world rather than having it designed for us and of course the key Point here is the evolution is by chance it is a blind process it is about adaptation and mutations rather than design so this explanation is that we're here by chance rather than design we need to therefore he believed outgrow belief in God he spoke a lot about a god of the gaps that people used to believe in many many more Gods than they do now and we now need to all outgrow the one monotheistic God that many people cling on to because he says science can now Explain the origin of the universe and Humanity so we now have the Big Bang Theory we now have Evolution which explain the existence of the universe we don't need to cling on to what he would see as these outdated uh superstitious beliefs and he writes that natural selection is the blind watch maker and that the only watch maker in nature is the blind forces of physic so as I say he would say that design is an illusion that actually we uh did not have the world designed for us and of course that is quite a human Centric way of thinking it actually is a case of us over over time evolving to it so again I'd love to hear your thoughts on these criticisms actually which do you think is the best criticism which provides the best most robust critique of design arguments of te logical arguments and have you got any of your own as well I would ask for example about um existentialism and the idea that there is no inherent Telos for the universe again talking directly about this being the te logical argument based on design you know the idea that actually there is no inherent purpose we have to create one for ourselves so yes please let me know in the comments which of these you think is the best criticism or have you got a better one and let's go further for that a star what rebuttal have you got for these criticisms what problems can you see with the criticisms how could Paley respond how could aquinus defend telogical arguments you know I'm thinking straight away for example of well you know if we're talking about Evolution and natural selection where do those laws in the universe come from where do those laws of gravity for example come from can they be explained by Evolution can they be put down to Absolute chance or is there probability and remember a posterior right arguments are about probability that they could be the result of design but then again you can come back on that and say well whoever was able to design that must have a really good design of themselves so you know lots to think about still I feel like this video is hopefully for you raised more questions than it has provided answers you know that is the whole point of what we're doing so yes all that is left now I hope this has been helpful by the way I hope you've enjoyed it as much as I have um all that's left is to just review the specs we just need to have a quick look at what we've looked at we've looked at aquinus this fifth way we've looked at Paley of course we've looked at um the details of humans criticisms haven't we and we've spoken about the challenge of Evolution and the idea that we evolve to the world rather than having it designed for us we've had a little bit of a conversation about that difference between a posterior right and a priorite arguments which is more persuasive and why we've asked and I'd like to actually hear your thoughts on this in the comments whether or not te logical arguments can be defended against the challenge of chance so is it a case of we're here by chance or are we here by Design thinking of your Epicurean hypothesis thinking of your um natural selection and The Challenge from Evolution and then do you think and this leads me to the question I've put on the board that it is more likely that the Universe came about by chance than that God designed it evaluate this statement so you might like to have a go at that forcy marker bringing together everything we've talked about today and everything we've looked at today thank you very much for joining me I do hope that's been helpful for you and I want to wish you the very best of luck with your revision and and your studies take care and have a great day