Most of the arguments we’ve considered so far had a relatively familiar and “concrete” subject: the choice of a major. Philosophical arguments, however, usually address more abstract and sticky material, like the existence of God.
For example, let’s take a look at the following conversation between five
people, each of whom is offering an
argument to support his or her opinion. As you read each argument, try to
identify the ultimate conclusion and decide if the
argument is good or bad. Click on the name of a participant to examine that
person’s argument more closely.
Linda: “Sure God exists! After
all, some people have recovered from very serious illnesses after being prayed for,
and the only way this could happen is if God exists.”
Bill: “You’re right, Linda. Besides, the Bible is the word of God and God
always tells the truth so everything the Bible says is true. And the Bible says that God exists, so God
must exist.”
Susan: “As far as I’m concerned, religion is just another kind of
superstition. Think about it! Some distinguished scientists don’t believe in
God. Consequently, God doesn’t exist.”
Mike: “Furthermore, when I was
8, I didn’t get the bicycle that I prayed for. God, if he existed, would have
given me the bicycle. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.”
Leslie: “That’s right. God doesn’t
exist. If God existed then there’d be evidence of his existence because if God
existed, he’d want people to believe in him. But there
isn’t any evidence that God exists. Besides, belief in God is nothing more than
a form of mental illness, since there are similarities between religious
experiences and schizophrenic hallucinations.”
The Bearing of
Arguments on Ultimate Conclusions
After
you’ve examined all of the arguments you want from this conversation, consider
the comments of the following listeners.
Mary: “I like Linda’s point when she says that
people recover from serious illnesses after being prayed for and that this
could only happen if God existed. I think this is a really good argument for
the existence of God!”
Can
you conclude from this that Mary believes in God?
Rest
the mouse here to find out.
George: “I can’t believe that Mike’s an
atheist just because he didn’t the bike he prayed for. What a lousy argument
against the existence of God!”
Can
you conclude from this that George believes in God?
Rest
the mouse here to find out.
Pin the Tail on the
Donkey
It’s also useful to be able
to identify the part of an argument that’s targeted by
an objection. I think of these as “Pin the Tail on the Donkey” exercises
because you pin the objection on the diagram. I’ll present you with two
arguments, followed by criticisms of the argument. For each criticism, see if
you can identify the part of the argument (the premise or the inference) that
it criticizes. You can check you answer by resting the mouse over the name of
the person leveling the objection.
The Teleological Argument
for God’s Existence: “God must exist. After all, natural objects are very well put together. (The human eye, for example,
adjusts to let in the right amount of light for vision.) We know that many
objects – like watches – are very well put together because intelligent beings
created them. It’s reasonable to conclude, therefore, that natural
objects have been created by an intelligent being. Therefore there must
be a God.”
1. There must be a God.
2. Natural objects are very well put together.
3. We know that many objects
– like watches – are very well put together because intelligent beings created
them.
4. Natural
objects have been created by an intelligent being.
2 +
3
A |
4
B |
1
Elliot:
I don’t think that natural objects are very well put
together. Plants and animals are breaking down all the time!
Francis:
Sure, natural objects are put together well. And it’s true that objects like watches are very well put
together because intelligent beings created them. But
those are artifacts. It doesn’t
follow from this that natural
objects were created by an intelligent being.
Ann:
Mightn’t natural objects have been created by an intelligent being other than
God – really smart aliens, for example?
A Response to the
Teleological Argument: “Evolution is the right explanation for why natural
objects are vey well put together. Therefore, the teleological argument for God’s
existence doesn’t work. But the teleological argument is the best argument we
have for God’s existence and so no argument for God’s existence will be very
good. Therefore we shouldn’t believe in God.”
1. We shouldn’t believe in God.
2. Evolution is the right explanation for for why natural objects are vey well put together.
3. The teleological argument for God’s existence doesn’t work.
4. The teleological argument is the best argument we have for God’s existence.
5. No argument for God’s
existence will be very good..
2
A |
3 + 4
B|
5
C |
1
Roberta:
“I’m not so sure that evolution is correct. The fossil record is pretty weak in
some areas.”
Zach:
“I think that some versions of the teleological argument presuppose the truth
of evolution. The point is why are various natural laws the way the are, the way that allows for evolution?”
Chris:
“Aren’t other arguments for God’s existence better than the teleological
argument?”
Sally:
“I think we should believe in God on the basis of faith, not argument.”