Teleological/design argument

Part of natural theology

The belief that it is possible to show that some religious ideas are true through philosophical arguments based on universal experience.

Type of evidence and argument structure

They begin with a posteriori evidence (universal experience) and the argument uses an inductive structure (conclusion goes beyond the premises) to suggest the most probable conclusion based on the evidence.

Who developed the teleological argument

Found in Plato and the stoic philosopher Anaxagoras. Main proponents were William Paley in his book Natural Theology: evidences of the existence and attributes of a deity collected from the appearance of nature and Thomas Aquinas in his book the Summa Theologica, where it is the fifth way in his five ways. A modern version was developed by Tennent in his book philosophical theology.

Aquinas’ teleological argument

(heavily influenced by Aristotle) We experience that non-intelligent things have a purpose or telos (eg. acorn-oak tree). We experience that these things reach their purpose in the same orderly ways. "Natural objects act for a purpose...acting always or nearly always in the same way". Chance or luck cannot explain why this is the case. They must have been deliberately designed and directed to act in this way by a being with knowledge and intelligence, i.e. they have a guiding hand like an arrow which is guided to reach a target by the archer. This being must be outside of the universe and "this being we call God."

Design argument of William Paley

Uses the principle of analogy- i.e. it compares two things believed to be similar, one you know a lot about and the other you don't, in order to see if the conclusion about the former can be applied to the latter (ie. whether like effects have similar causes). Paley says to imagine that you are walking across a heath you come across a stone. You would conclude this arrived here by natural means. However, if you came across a pocket watch you would not reach the same conclusion. Instead you would think it had been designed deliberately by an intelligent being. This is because it has complex intricate parts which all work together for a purpose, i.e. to tell the time. The same conclusion would be reached if it did not work properly, if you don't know what it is or how it worked. "Such a design could not have come about by chance-something must have made it fit together. There must be a watchmaker". Thus the experience that it has parts to fulfil a purpose is more reasonably explained by suggesting there is a watchmaker. It is the same if you looked at the aspects of the universe such as the hinges on the wings of an earwig or the parts of the eye which all work together to fulfil a purpose such as flight or sight. The only reasonable explanation for this is that they have been deliberately designed. You would also think the designer cares because there is attention to detail. As the universe is so much more complex and impressive than a watch, the designer of the universe must be supreme which can only be the Christian God.

Tennant’s argument

1. The anthropic principle: We can clearly see that our universe is not chaotic but it has all necessary features to bring about and support life, including evolution. For example, gravity which is perfect for stars and planets to form- any stronger or weaker and they would not. This must be evidence for God.

2. The aesthetic argument- the universe is beautiful on so many levels. As humans we appreciate this through art, music and literature. This is not necessary for survival (thus cannot be explained via evolution). It therefore points to a designer or God.

Strengths

• Based on universal objective experience of order and design that all can understand.

• Shows how God's existence can be demonstrated outside of revelation and is rational.

• Conclusion of an intelligent designer is compatible with Christian views of God. Thus, it will be acceptable to Christian especially those that embrace natural theology such as Catholics.

• Natural selection does not disprove God, as John Polkinghorne argues it could be the way God chose to create the world.

• People agree that the complexity and order in the universe points to a designer than chance. Arthur Peacocke agrees saying God supplies the reason for the universe and Poul Davies says: "science deals with the facts of the world, religion deals with the interpretation of these facts."

• Its long history from Plato and Anaxagoras and modern versions today (e.g. Tennant and Swinburne). Thus, it is very popular as Kant said because it is a "physio-theological proof" being "the oldest, the clearest and the best suited to ordinary human reason."

Weaknesses

The criticisms of Hume (unless stated otherwise):

• Principle of proportionality: attributes we say a designer must have must be proportional to the evidence-it cannot prove additional attributes such as those found within the God of Christianity (e.g. eternal, one, omniscient, omnipotent, loving, trinity etc). The evidence shows that what made the universe could be a limited God (a superhuman type God), an imperfect one or a group of Gods. Illustration-pair of scales.

• We need to see other universes to know if it is designed. We need to compare the universe to one that we know has and one that we know has not been designed to see which one ours resembles the most only then can we say ours is designed. Anthony Kenny-this the 'killing blow' as: "We do not have, and we necessarily could not have, experience of other universes to tell us that universes, or universes with these particular features, are always, or most likely, the work of Gods or of Gods of this or that particular sort."

• Analogy is problematic: It is not sound to compare the universe to something we know definitely has been designed (like a watch) as this biases our conclusions. If we compare it to a natural object like a carrot or a cucumber we might conclude design is due to self-regulation, generation, growth rather than God etc.

• The world appears orderly but it might not be: It is a logical error to say what is true of the part is true for the whole. Thus, our part of the universe may appear orderly/designed but this might not be true for the whole. Furthermore, even if the whole is orderly/purposeful, all we can conclude is that it is orderly/purposeful and not that it was designed-Mackie claims to say otherwise is making a gratuitous assumption.

• There could be natural explanations for order: Hume claims that there could be other natural explanations such as the universe is a biological entity that regulates itself where it is "a great vegetable, [producing] within itself certain seeds, which, being scattered into the surrounding chaos, vegetate into new worlds." He also appeals to the Epicurean hypothesis-if we have infinite time every possible combination could occur including a universe naturally appearing that appears to be designed and orderly (e.g. infinite time monkeys could type Shakespeare). Theory of evolution: Could be an alternative conclusion for the apparent design. Found in the works the origin of the species and descent of man by Darwin. Natural selection is the principle by which species develop and give the appearance of design. Due to random mutations in genes some species will be better suited to their environment that others and they will survive where as others will die (Steve Jones calls this a series of successful mistakes). Dawkins agrees and claims how we develop is determined by our genes and our behaviour is determined so that our genes survive both in ourselves and offspring. Natural selection gives the appearance of design, but this is not the case as he says in the blind watchmaker: "Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, it has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to pay the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker”.

• John Stuart Mil (Noture and the Utility of Religionll; there is too much evil to support that a designer is the God of Christianity. If there is a designer it would not be all good as nature is full of 'atrocities' which would suggest a creator is bad: "Not even on the most distorted and contracted theory of good which was ever framed by religious or philosophical fanaticism, can the government of nature be made to resemble the work of a being at once good and omnipotent." Indeed, he said that if a human had committed the acts of this creator they would be executed! Anthony Kenny agrees with Mill when he said: "[this argument] leads to a God which is more the course of good than the source of evil. The God to which this argument of rational theology leads is not supreme goodness: it is a being which is beyond good and evil."

• Design might be how we see the universe. Thus, it is just an "arbitrary act of the mind" rather than how it is Kant agrees saying design is the way we interpret the world through our spectacles of reason rather than how it's (Le the phenomena rather than the noumena). Richard Tavlor-the desire for an explanation is justi human need, not a factual state of affairs. Ereud- we believe it is God because we fear chaos and chance- it is Just a projection of our psychological need and is wishful thinking. Logical positivist not meaningful to talk of a designer as beyond our comprehension. Russell- universe is just a brute fact there is no explanation for it.