Wong Simon Third Exercise Question
2/26/06 TA: Joe Yardbrough
Cleathes, unlike Demea and Philo, uses an empirical method to form his argument. Cleanthes relies heavily on inductive reasoning (where similar causes produce similar effects). Cleanthes achieved his design argument by noticing that since as we see in the universe, things that serve a purpose are usually designed. Furthermore, things that are designed also have designers. Cleanthes then states that the universe seems to serve purpose, therefore it is designed, and more importantly it has a designer. He then takes one step further in which he states that the designer is a human-like God (since all perceived designers have been human). Philo is completely opposed to this method of logic. First, Philo makes the weak analogy counter argument. The best analogies, says Philo, start with something similar to what we are trying to explain. However, something designed by humans such as a car is not similar to the universe. Philos examples were comparing blood to and sap comparing the growth of hair to the generation of human beings. Basically, Philo is pointing out that perhaps Cleanthes is making too large of a leap. Furthermore, Philo opposes Cleanthes view that God is human-like by saying it is more reasonable to believe that there are other intelligent life forms capable of designing in the universe. However, Philo stems away from saying that there are other planets but rather points out there are other designers on Earth as well. For example, birds make nests and beavers build dams. Cleanthes than comes back by giving another analogy. He asks Philo to imagine that books could reproduce like any animal. Moreover, Cleanthes points out that we would attribute that the book was probably authored (designed). A book is perhaps the pinnacle of the product of intelligence and the mind. Since it is our first inclination to believe that such an item is designed, it isnt speculative to propose that the universe is indeed designed by God (since the universe is much more complex).