Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Philosophy Richard Swinburnes Teleological Argument Richard Swinburnes Teleological Argument Although explicated on many occasions and by many different authors, the teleological argument for the existence of God provides the best springboard from which to launch contemporary convictions of faith. In the revised edition of his earlier The Existence of God, Richard Swinburne constructs a solid outline that reveals the exact structure of the teleological argument. He presents both forms of the teleological argument , holds each under the light of skeptical review and then provides insight and defense that allows for careful philosophical review. Swinburne begins his outline of the teleological argument by identifying its two forms: ‘regularities of co-presence’ and ‘regularities of succession.’ Regularities of co-presence, according to Swinburne, might be “a town with all its roads at right angles to each other, or a section of books in a library arranged in alphabetical order of authors;” Regularities of succession are “simple patterns of behavior of objects, such as their behavior in accordance with the laws of nature – for example, Newton’s laws.” The distinction between regularities of co-presence and regularities of succession becomes pivotal in the ultimate dissection of this argument. The version identified by regularities of co-presence lends itself well to the defense of theism; unfortunately, it also lends itself well to total dismantlement. This particular version of the argument being the one studied almost exclusively by eighteenth century thinkers follows a very natural and uncomplicated path. Swinburne demonstrates the natural and uncomplicated path by suggesting that “animals and plants have the power to reproduce their kind, and so, given the past existence of animals and plants, their present existence is to be expected. But what is vastly surprising is the existence of animals and plants at all. By natural processes they can only come into being through generation. But we know that the world has not been going on forever, and so the great puzzle is the existence of the first animals and plants in 4004 BC or whenever exactly it was that animals and plants began to exist. Since they could not have come about by natural scientific processes, and since they are very similar to the machines, which certain rational agents, viz. men, make, it is very probable that they were made by a rational agent – only clearly one more powerful and knowledgeable than men.” According to this version of the teleological argument, that entity more powerful and knowledgeable than man is God. The teleological argument whose version identifies regularities of co-presence is quickly dismantled with the introduction of Mr. Charles Darwin. “Complex animals and plants,” Swinburne argues, “can be produced through generation by less complex animals and plants – species are not eternally extinct; and simple animals and plants can be produced by natural processes from inorganic matter.” And in this simple language the logical validity of regularities of co-presence simply ceases to exist: something of a philosophical evolution. And like the very argument that dismantled regularities of co-presence, Swinburne’s argument evolves into a more complex version identified by regularities of succession. “Regularities of succession,” argues Swinburne, “are all-pervasive. For simple laws govern almost all successions of events. In books of physics, chemistry and biology we can learn how almost everything in the world behaves. The laws of their behavior can be set out by relatively simple formulae which men can understand and by means of which they can successfully predict the future. The orderliness of the universe to which I draw attention here is its conformity to formula, to simple, formulable, scientific laws. The orderliness of the universe in this respect is a very striking fact about it. The universe might so naturally have been chaotic, but it is not – it is very orderly.” To this argument, many claim that the order we see in the universe is there because we have imposed it; it is not there independently of our imposition. And this has always seemed quite a solid refutation, for how do you prove order? According to Swinburne, “the teleologist’s premise is not just that there has been in nature so far an order which men can recognize and describe; but there has been and will continue to be in nature an order, recognizable and describable by men certainly, but one which exists independently of men. If men are correct in their belief that the order which they see in the world is an order which will hold in the future as in the past, it is clearly not an imposed or invented order. It is there in nature. For man cannot make nature conform subsequently to an order which he has invented. Only if the order is there in nature is nature’s future conformity to be expected.” To this version of the teleological argument, there are varying conclusions mandated by opinion, as opposed to its earlier version whose single conclusion seemed mandated by logic and scientific truths. Swinburne concedes this version is vulnerable to attack from those who claim “that although the order of the universe is an objective matter, nevertheless, unless the universe were an orderly place, men would not be around to comment on the fact… Hence there is nothing surprising in the fact that men find order – they could not possibly find anything else.” Although the teleological argument has a strong version (regularities of succession), it will continue to receive skeptical review because it cannot build the complete bridge to the throne of God. In fact, no theory can. At some point in time, there must be a leap of faith. Theists make their leap in one direction, atheists in another. The question is not one of the leap itself, but which bridge appears closer. Swinburne has advanced the bridge of theism with his regularities of succession. Bibliography: Word Count: 956
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.